“when jurors need no assistance to understand the fact at issue, the expert’s testimony [on the same facts] may lend undue credence to one party’s view of the facts because that testimony bears the imprimatur of an expert”
How later courts described this case
- “when jurors need no assistance to understand the fact at issue, the expert’s testimony [on the same facts] may lend undue credence to one party’s view of the facts because that testimony bears the imprimatur of an expert”
- Tjoflat, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc
- Tjoflat, J., dissenting from denial of reh’g en banc (citing Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n.3 (2000) (“[I]n limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may always change his mind during the course of a trial.”))
- “The district court’s decision admitting or excluding evidence is a discretionary call; a judge commits no reversible error unless his decision constituted an abuse of discretion.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1321 ORDER ON REHEARING EN BANC
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. *
BY THE COURT:
The court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure), the Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.