U.S. v. Lopez

In prosecution on charges of wire fraud, money laundering and securities fraud, arising out of scheme where defendant took investors’ money and, instead of making promised investments, spent said money on his personal expenses, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing govt. witness to testify that certain initial payments defendant made to investors were “lulling payments” that came from uninvested funds. While defendant argued that said testimony improperly allowed said witness to express opinion as to defendant’s intent, said witness did not express any opinion as to defendant’s intent in making said payments, but rather told jury source of said funds. Also, Dist. Ct. could preclude plaintiff from referring to his own accountant witness as “expert,” where defendant was otherwise allowed to elicit opinion from said witness regarding legitimate nature of defendant’s payments to his investors. Moreover, prosecutor did not commit reversible error when comparing defendant’s conduct to Bernie Madoff during prosecutor’s closing argument, since: (1) record contained overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt on charged offenses; (2) instant comparison was not inaccurate; and (3) defendant had opportunity to rebut said claim in his own closing argument. (Dissent filed.)