State v. Salpatoria

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the improper admission of expert testimony through a lay witness is subject to harmless error review
• observing that “Huang was assigned to investigate defendants’ activities at the tail-end of their scheme and after Bank of China stopped doing business with them”
• finding error in admission of evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 701 that was “not a product of [witness’s] investigation” but rather “reflected [his] specialized knowledge”
• finding error in admission of evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 701 that was \not a product of [witness's] investigation\ but rather \reflected [his] specialized knowledge\
• noting purpose of Rule 701(c) “to eliminate the risk that the reliability requirements set forth in Rule 702 will be evaded through the simple expedient of proffering an expert in lay witness clothing”
• “There is a conceptual difference between criminal bank fraud and bank fraud as a predicate for a civil RICO action” brought by a private litigant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).