People v. Romano (Manuel)

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no expert testimony required where the assessment of certain facts was “regularly made in everyday life.”
• “Any gaps in the chain of custody or speculative claims of tampering go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.”
• “If the matter is within the jurors’ under- standing, the expert testimony is not ‘specialized knowledge’ that ‘will help the trier of fact’….” (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702)
• “If the matter is within the jurors’ under- standing, the expert testimony is not ‘specialized knowledge’ that ‘will help the trier of fact’….” (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702)
• “If the matter is within the jurors’ understanding, the expert testimony is not ‘specialized knowledge’ that ‘will help the trier of fact,’ as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702.”
• “If the matter is within the ju- rors’ understanding, the expert testimony is not ‘specialized knowledge’ that ‘will help the trier of fact,’ as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).