Massachusetts Appeals Court· 10/8/1998

Commonwealth v. Tanner

Citations

45 Mass. App. Ct. 576
700 N.E.2d 282
1998 Mass. App. LEXIS 1105

How courts have described this case

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

noting that “[i]t is easy for the line between specific observations and expert generalizations to become blurred,” and “[t]he testimony of a combined expert/ percipient witness has unique persuasive value”
criticizing expert testimony “presented in conclusory form . . . [that] amounts to little more than vouching for the Commonwealth’s position”
commenting on danger inherent in the use of opinion testimony of a percipient witness
“In assessing whether expert evidence strays over the line . . . the sole touchstone should not be whether a witness uses any particular figure of speech”
“It is easy for the line between specific observations and expert generalizations to become blurred in these situations”
“Even without such testimony, the jury would have known that [the officer] believed that. . . the defendant had been involved in drug sales”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown, Gillerman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

44 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.