United States v. Medina-Copete

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 “properly admitted evidence” was sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict, but concluding that the admission of the improper evidence was “not harmless” because the court had “‘grave doubt’ about the outcome of this trial”
• finding the district court abused its discretion in admitting an expert witness to offer opinion testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702 about the connection between so-called \narco saint\ iconography and drug trafficking
• “[W]itnesses ‘relying solely or primarily on experience … must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.’”
• “[W]itnesses ‘relying solely or primarily on experience … must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.’”
• “The harmless-error doctrine does not require us to precisely measure the damage caused by [the impermissible] testimony. It is sufficient for us to say that we have ‘grave doubt’ about the outcome of this trial . . . .”
• so stating as to Fed. R. Evid. 702[b] and [c]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).