Opinion ID: 50284
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony of Sandy Abalos

Text: Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gutierrez-Farias, 294 F.3d 657, 662 (5th Cir. 2002). They are also subject to harmless error review. See United States v. Williams, 343 F.3d 423, 434 (5th Cir. 2003). Though the government disputes whether this issue was preserved for appeal, the record shows that the nature of the defendant’s objection at trial was clear from the context and thereby preserved. Among the individuals to whom Fisher marketed his tax scheme was Joe Polish. Polish retained Abalos, a Certified Public Accountant, to review the scheme and advise him of its propriety. As part of her review, Abalos met with Fisher and Polish in person to discuss it. Abalos testified at trial that Fisher appeared concerned when she suggested that the IRS review his scheme. She later testified that, in her professional opinion, Fisher knew that what he was doing was wrong: 1 The trial took place before Booker, when sentencing facts were often presented to the jury. 3 Abalos: In my opinion, I completely believed that Dan Fisher knew what he was doing. Defense counsel: Your Honor, I object to this, it’s her speculating to the mental processes of Dan Fisher. Court: That is overruled.