tying the defendants together in order to prove conspiracy.”). 11 . See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997) ("The term 'unfair prejudice' ... speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged.”) (emphasis added). 12 .Rule 704(b) prohibits an expert witness from ‘'stat[ing] an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.” 13 . E.g., United States v. Morin, 627 F.3d 985, 995 (5th Cir. 2010). 14 . Id. at 998 (quoting United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 621 F.3d 354, 367 (5th Cir. 2010)). 15 . See id. at 999-1000 (<HOLDING>); Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 621 F.3d at 367-68
holding that defendants substantial rights were not affected by allegedly erroneous accomplice liability jury instruction because there was considerable evidence of the defendants intent that the victim be murdered holding that a substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict holding that defendant waived argument as to evidence of his prior convictions for habitualoffender purposes by not objecting below despite defendants argument that his substantial rights had been affected holding that a defendant had not shown that drugcourierprofile evidence affected his substantial rights because the government produced a substantial volume of additional evidence demonstrating the defendants guilty knowledge holding that where the district courts sentencing decision was amply supported by the evidence and the defendant thus received a sentence merited by the evidence the defendant could not show the error affected his substantial rights