Opinion ID: 57242
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Taylor’s Testimony

Text: McFarland’s objection to Taylor’s testimony was sustained by the district court and so no impermissible testimony was admitted. McFarland now argues that the testimony elicited by the rephrased question constitutes impermissible opinion testimony, but her attorney made no such objection at trial. Accordingly, we review that admission of testimony for plain error. A review of the transcript reveals that Taylor functioned as a fact witness, not as an expert witness. The overwhelming majority of questions preceding the question at issue here follow a narrative of her personal business dealings with McFarland and other members of McFarland’s firm. Those questions that do not ask only for clarification of business terms or personal business practices based on 8 her particularized experience in the title insurance field. The government’s rephrasing of its question to Taylor and her response draw solely upon her personal observations regarding her direct experiences in dealing with McFarland’s closing files. This is further supported by the goverment’s response to McFarland’s objection: that the testimony should be allowed because Taylor was “familiar with the transactions, ha[d] gone behind the transactions.” R5 at 431. Accordingly, we find that the testimony falls squarely within that permitted by Rules 701 and 704. There was no error, plain or otherwise.