Opinion ID: 3063433
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: c onvictions

Text: Hendrick argues that the government did not present sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he conspired with Jack London to obstruct justice or to tamper with a witness. In a related argument, he contends that the government failed to meet its burden of proof as to these charges. He further argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence: (1) the lay opinion testimony of Randall Hilliard, who received immunity from prosecution; (2) the surprise expert testimony of former IRS Agent Dennis Donnell; and (3) the hearsay testimony of Elaine London, Jack London’s widow. 2 After carefully reviewing the record, studying the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence to support Hendrick’s convictions. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony of Hilliard, Donnell, or Elaine London. Thus, we affirm all of Hendrick’s convictions.