United States v. Emerson Seschillie

How courts have described this case

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

• reviewing for abuse of discretion Rule 615(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which directly mirrors Ariz. R. Evid. 615(c)
• explaining no “countervailing reasons to sequester [the expert]” existed because the expert was not a fact witness
• “We decline to conclude, however, that an expert witness will always meet the criteria of Rule 615(3).”
• discussing application of harmless error standard in criminal cases
• “[A]n expert who is not 5 expected to testify to facts, but only assumes facts for purposes of rendering opinions, might just 6 as well hear all of the trial testimony so as to be able to base his opinion on more accurate factual 7 assumptions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).