Opinion ID: 202748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anabel Enriquez

Text: 27 Appellants also argue that Anabel Enriquez (the senior vice president of Caguas' mortgage department from 1980-87, who reported directly to Sánchez-Arán) testified beyond her personal knowledge when she stated, based on her review of the minutes of Board and Executive Committee meetings, that certain information was not discussed at the meetings that should have been discussed. This objection is unfounded. At trial, Enriquez read the Board meeting minutes into evidence, including minutes for meetings at which she was not present. Appellants objected, and, after considerable debate, the district court ruled that [Enriquez] may literally read what each paragraph [of the minutes] says. If the United States then wants an explanation as to the paragraph she must then have an independent source of knowledge. Thus, Enriquez did not testify whether certain events actually happened at a Board meeting unless she was present; for meetings she did not attend, she testified only whether the minutes reflect that certain information was discussed. The district court enforced this limitation, and required the prosecutor to rephrase questions on more than one occasion. 8 Similarly, Enriquez's testimony that the Board should have been told certain information was a lay opinion properly admitted under Rule 701. Her position as a senior vice president of Caguas' mortgage department and her regular attendance at Board meetings established her familiarity with Caguas' business operations and made it appropriate for her testify about information the Board needed to make its decisions. Again, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing such testimony.