# UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marty WEBB, Defendant-Appellant

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 9, 1997 · 115 F.3d 711

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490363

## Case

- **Full name:** 46 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1243, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4327, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7237 United States of America v. Marty Webb
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 9, 1997
- **Citations:** 115 F.3d 711; 97 Daily Journal DAR 7237; 46 Fed. R. Serv. 1243; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4327; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13417; 1997 WL 304755
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fletcher
- **Judges:** Fletcher, Trott, Jenkins
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490363

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that Rule 704(b) would preclude expert's opinion as to whether a hypothetical defendant in a hypothetical factual scenario, indistinguishable from the defendant and facts in the case before court, would have the necessary intent
- recognizing that “the expert was particularly qualified” to give his opinion

## Opinion text

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
In addition to concurring in the majority opinion, I concur in Judge Jenkins’ thoughtful and insightful concurrence highlighting the need for district courts to perform adequately the “gate-keeper” function in determining whether “expert testimony” is truly “expert” and likely to be of help to the jury.
I note that our decision here that Daubert informs the district court’s appropriate inquiry into the admissibility of scientific evidence does not suggest that the imperatives of Rule 702 and Rule 104(a) do not apply to technical or other specialized knowledge.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490363. Public record. Not legal advice.