United States v. Diaz

If the terms used by an expert witness do not have a specialized meaning in law and do not represent an attempt to instruct the jury on the law, or how to apply the law to the facts of the case, the testimony is not an impermissible legal conclusion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distributing controlled prescription drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). In this case, the panel held that an expert's testimony passed muster under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and 704 where he did not substitute his judgment for the jury's. Rather, he provided a professional opinion about whether a course of conduct comported with the standard of care prevalent in the medical community. View "United States v. Diaz" on Justia Law