Cedric Stewart v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that for an error to be plain, “it must, at a minimum, be clear under current law” (citation omitted)
• explaining that the court is tasked with “ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand” (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993))
• explaining that the court is tasked with “ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand” (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993))
• “[F]or an error to be plain, it must, at a minimum, be clear under current law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[F]or an error to be plain, it must, at a minimum, be clear under current law, which means that we typically will not find such error . . . where there is no binding precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court.” 7 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).