Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Rule 702 talks about amenability if this type of

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: ury (ex: Expert testimony that tooth was not extracted with due care). a. Like this case b. Have to run a 403 balancing test to determine if the probative value outweighs the undue influence that the expert stamp might have. IN this instance the court determines that the expert is not bringing arcane knowledge to the jury it is just common sense that if you are traveling with drugs you are not going to have your bags checked in your own name. UNITED STATES v. PAUL [Testimony by Experts: Proper Subjects; Qualifications of Witness FRE 702] Facts: Unidentified person telephone branch manager of Wachovia in Atlanta and warned him that someone was going to attempt to extort money from the bank. The person told Spearman to follow the directions that were to be in the note. Spearman contacted FBI. FBI followed directions in note, delivered the money to a restroom in a downtown Atlanta McDonald's. When FBI arrived at McDonald's he saw appellant at a table, watched appellant enter the bathroom, and take the briefcase. When confronted, Paul told the agents that he was in the area to visit a nearby gym yeah right. Procedural Pos...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online