Opinion ID: 582485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearsay Testimony Regarding Assay Reports

Text: 17 Wilson claims that the court erred by allowing the testimony of Wallace Myers, who had prepared two assays which indicated that the Arizona mining site had only trace, negligible, or no valuable mineral resources. Myers testified that he had received a call from an unknown potential investor who read him a version of Myer's report that contained far more favorable results than Myers had found. During closing arguments, the government used this testimony to imply that the defendants had falsified the report. Because Wilson did not make a timely objection to the challenged testimony, 2 we employ a plain error standard of review. United States v. Gomez-Gallardo, 915 F.2d 553, 555 (9th Cir.1990). 18 Even if the testimony was hearsay, receiving it was not plain error. Myers was only one among dozens of witnesses in this case, and his remarks about the statements of the unknown caller comprised but a small part of his testimony. In addition, the testimony prompted only a passing reference to the unknown caller in the government's closing argument. Cf. id. at 555 ([I]n the absence of timely objection, only those errors that seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings will be corrected by this court.) (quoting United States v. Smith, 790 F.2d 789, 793 (9th Cir.1986)).