Muntin v. State of California Parks & Recreation Department

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding the admission of expert testimony \to explain physical evidence [of heroin manufacturing paraphernalia] that was in the case\
• finding admissible under Rule 702 testimony describing “the types of paraphernalia that - one would expect to find at a [heroin] ‘mill’ ”
• evidence against defendant insufficient on narcotics conspiracy charge despite fact that an M-16 rifle was found concealed in her apartment
• “[I]t was not improper for the government to elicit ... expert testimony from law enforcement officers who also testified as fact witnesses.”
• testimony that location frequented by defendants was a narcotics “shooting gallery” and that witnessed incident was a narcotics transaction
• court questioned need to have expert police testimony that “25 to 30 people milling around outside a building” indicated presence of heroin den

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).