Opinion ID: 2822110
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: This Testimony Was Potentially Improper but

Text: Harmless Unlike Officer Vázquez's testimony, this testimony was potentially problematic for two reasons. First, Agent James made clear that he was not testifying about his personal knowledge of Negro but rather was summarizing everything the investigation had uncovered. Second, the context he provided was well beyond the scope of the question asked. Whether this qualifies as improper overview testimony, however, is a determination we need not make because any error that -41- may have occurred was harmless. Agent James testified as part of Christopher's case-in-chief, well after the government had already rested. Thus, most -- if not all -- of the evidence Agent James referred to had already been introduced by other witnesses. At the very least, the government had provided evidence that Christopher and Negro were the same person and that there had been an attempt on Christopher's life. Given the timing of this testimony and the fact that the same evidence had previously been properly introduced, we are confident that this testimony did not affect the verdict, and thus the error was harmless. See United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42, 57 (1st Cir. 2006) (distinguishing other cases involving improper overview testimony in part because the officer did not testify until near the end of the government's case-inchief); Casas, 356 F.3d at 121 (explaining that the admission of improper testimony is harmless if it is highly probable that the error did not influence the verdict).