a recipient’s reaction to a communication addressed to him is helpful to the jury’s determination of whether a threat has been lodged. Fulmer, 108 F.3d at 1499-1500. The appellant’s next complaint, voiced for the first time on appeal, posits that neither the private investigator nor the online counselor consulted by the appellant should have been allowed to opine about his state of mind during their internet exchanges. Had there been contemporaneous objections below, this argument might present a close question. After all, the jurors were presented with the contents of the online conversations and were in as good a position as the witnesses to gauge what those communications portended for the appellant’s state of mind. See United States v. Sanabria, 645 F.3d 505, 515 (1st Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). But there is a rub. The appellant never
holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible recognizing that a common illustration of an admissible opinion under rule 701 is an expression of opinion by a lay observer of a cars speed holding that medical expert opinion testimony that is controversial in its conclusions can support a jury finding of causation as long as the doctors conclusory opinion is based upon wellfounded methodologies holding that lay opinion testimony is not admissible when the jury can readily draw the necessary inferences and conclusions without the aid of the opinion holding that witnesss opinion of a persons reaction to hearing a statement was admissible lay testimony based on personal observation