United States v. James T. Whitted

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that admission of expert-vouching testimony required reversal in part because “[t]he Government heavily relied on [the doctor’s] testimony” in prosecuting the case
• holding that a doctor may not pass judgment on the victim's truthfulness in guise of medical opinion, because it is the jury's function to decide credibility
• holding that doctor’s diagnosis of child sexual abuse “went too far”
• reversing jury verdict because expert’s testimony invaded the jury’s exclusive province to decide witness credibility
• reversing jury verdict because expert's testimony invaded the jury's exclusive province to decide witness credibility
• excluding diagnosis of “repeated child sexual abuse” because the witness based the “diagnosis solely on [the victim’s] allegations of abuse”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).