[SOLVED] A federal district court jury convicted Mauricio

A federal district court jury convicted Mauricio Warner on all 50 counts of an indictment that charged him with obtaining individuals’ identities and using such identities to file over 5,000 false income tax returns resulting in millions of dollars in refunds that were deposited in bank accounts Warner controlled. The court sentenced Warner to prison for a total of 240 months. He now appeals his convictions. He seeks the vacation of his convictions and a new trial on the grounds that the District Court abused its discretion
(1) in refusing to permit a polygraph examiner to testify to the results of a polygraph examination he administered to Warner;
(2) admitting into evidence government, spreadsheets of fraudulently submitted tax returns, as business records; and
(3) permitting each juror to have a copy of the indictment throughout trial.
A district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which is the standard we apply in reviewing evidentiary rulings in general. A district court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong law, follows the wrong procedure, bases its decision on clearly erroneous facts, or commits a clear error in judgment.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that an expert witness may testify in the form of an opinion if the expert’s specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact at issue.
The results of a polygraph examination are not inadmissible per se. The trial judge in the exercise of discretion may admit the results of such examination to impeach or corroborate witness testimony.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the polygraph examination was inadmissible under Rule 702. The question posed by the examiner addressed an issue that was to be decided by the jury, that is, whether Warner knowingly filed tax returns without the individuals’ authority or knowing that they were not entitled to the refund requested. Since Warner took the stand and answered the same questions, the jury was capable of determining his credibility without the aid of an expert.
Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 authorizes the admission into evidence of a summary of voluminous business records but only where the originals or duplicates of those originals are available for examination or copying by the other party.
The business record exception to the hearsay rule under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) states, in relevant part, that a record will be admitted if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by—or from information transmitted by—someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness;
(E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method of circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness…………………………………………………………

Required:
1. What three reasons did the defendant assert to support a request for a new trial?
2. What standard applies to an appellate court’s consideration of a contention that a trial court’s evidentiary ruling was in error?
3. What were the appellate court’s conclusions with respect to the trial court’s rulings in this case? What reasons support these conclusions?

Question: A federal district court jury convicted Mauricio