Henke
United States v. Henke
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Per Curiam Opinion; Concurrence by Judge BEEZER.
Chan Desaigoudar and Steven Henke, former executives of California Micro Devices, Inc. (“Cal Micro”), appeal their convictions for conspiracy to make false statements to the Securities Exchange Commission ( 18 U.S.C. § 371 ), making false statements ( 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ), securities fraud (15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(a), 78ff(a)), and insider trading (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78ff(a)). The government cross-appeals the defendants’ sentences.
The defendants claim that their convictions must be set aside because a conflict of interest prevented their counsel from cross-examining a key government witness and because there was insufficient evidence to support their insider trading convictions. Théy also argue that the district court erred in admitting lay opinion testimony and an out-of-court statement into evidence, and in failing to conduct an in camera review of government notes from an interview with a key government witness to ensure that the notes did not contain information that the government was required to disclose to the defense. Finally, they claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct in forcing Desaigoudar to testify that various…
Concurring Opinion
Beezer, J.
(Concurring):
I join the court’s opinion only with respect to the sections entitled BACKGROUND and LAY OPINION TESTIMONY. Because the district court’s error prejudiced both defendants and was not harmless, I would reverse the defendants’ convictions and remand for a new trial. Because this ground is sufficient to order' such relief, I would not address the other issues raised on appeal.