In a prosecution for bank fraud and tax evasion, district court's exclusion of defense evidence on the ground that defendant failed to comply with the reciprocal discovery requirement of Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(c) is affirmed as the district court did not err in excluding the evidence, but even if the court did err, it was harmless error because the excluded evidence would not have created reasonable doubt.
Argued: October 13, 2009
Decided and Filed: November 20, 2009
Opinion by Senior District Judge Hood
For Appellant: David W. Camp, Law Offices of David W. Camp
For Appellee: R. Leigh Grinalds, Assistant US Attorney