Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

District court denied pauls motion to exclude

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: didn't specifically object under Rule 701), so court can only reverse because of plain error (plain error = gross embarrassment to justice). Defendant asserts that the court erred in admitting the testimony because it concerned a subject within average juror understanding. Holding: Evidence such as this probably should not be admitted based on 702 and 403 considerations: Expert testimony on a subject that is well within the bounds of a jury's ordinary experience generally has little probative value. On the other hand, the risk of unfair prejudice is real! By appearing to put the expert's stamp of approval on the government's theory, such testimony might unduly influence the jury's own assessment of the inference that is being urged! However, Rules 702 and 403 were not raised as grounds of objection below and we cannot conclude that admitting the testimony was plain error: "So shocking that it seriously affected the fundamental fairness and basic integrity of the proceedings conducted below." Notes: Sometimes the conduct, although it occurs during the...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online