Cody v. State of Florida

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing “the difficulty of separating statements about actions 3 taken as in-house experts from what would essentially be expert opinion testimony”
• stating that the better course in a bench trial is to “to hear the testimony” of a challenged witness “and continue to sustain objections when appropriate” rather than refusing to allow them to testify as a fact witness
• difficulties in distinguishing between “fact” and “expert” testimony did not warrant excluding all testimony of in-house experts barred from giving “expert” testimony
• also recognizing that “fact” testimony may be presented by a person precluded from testifying as an “expert”
• in a bench trial, the court should have taken the in-house experts’ testimony subject to objections concerning improper “expert” opinions
• also finding admissible on this ground “fact” testimony from a witness barred from providing “expert” testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).