Whether the trial court erred in allowing prosecution expert witnesses to provide lay opinion testimony without making mandatory expert witness disclosures under F.R.Cr.P. 16(a)(1)(G)

Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in ruling that F.R.E. 701 permitted the prosecution to present in its casein-chief lay opinion testimony of three expert witnesses, a certified public accountant, an accountant, and an FBI forensic accountant , without providing F.R.Cr.P. 16(a)(1)(G) summaries of the opinions of the prosecution’s experts? [iii]