Opinion ID: 585701
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence of Employee Firing

Text: 14 We affirm the district court's ruling on the relevance of the evidence of Moline's firing. Ms. Nomer could not testify to what Porter believed about the company or about Gay's honesty. Nor could she offer competent testimony as to how Porter interpreted the Moline firing. The testimony was thus not of such obvious relevance as to make its exclusion an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the same evidence was put before the jury through Gay's testimony. Any error that occurred in the timing of the evidence's introduction to the jury is not sufficiently egregious to merit reversal of the convictions. See United States v. Basile, 569 F.2d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir.) ([W]hat Holden sought to have admitted earlier was eventually admitted and any error cured.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 920 (1978); see also United States v. Krowen, 809 F.2d 144, 151 (1st Cir.1987).