Opinion ID: 51016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McCorvey’s Income

Text: McCorvey next argues that the court improperly admitted testimony that investigators found no legitimate source of income because there was no foundation for the testimony as required by Rule 602 and 701. Under Rule 602, “[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is 10 introduced sufficient to introduce a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. A witness’s lay opinion is admissible if, inter alia, it is “rationally based on the perception of the witness.” Fed. R. Evid. 701. Here, the court did not abuse its discretion. Bruster testified that he was involved in the investigation and that he was unable to find any legitimate source of income. Thus, Bruster had personal knowledge, based on his investigation, and his testimony satisfied Rule 602. Moreover, even if there was error, that error was harmless because, as discussed above, the evidence against McCorvey was overwhelming. Harriston, 329 F.3d at 789.