United States v. Michael Robert Perkins

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that district court did not err in admitting under Rule 701 officers’ testimony on reasonableness of use-of-force “[b]ecause their testimony was framed in terms of their eyewitness observations and particularized experience as police officers”
• concluding testimony using \terms with considerable legal baggage . . . nearly always invade the province of the jury\
• explaining that “the word ‘reasonable’ in the § 242 context has a specific legal meaning’
• explaining that testimony, to be helpful to the jury, must “avoid the baseline legal conclusion of reasonableness.”
• explaining that testimony, to be helpful to the jury, must “avoid the baseline legal conclusion of reasonableness.”
• concluding officers’ testimony admissible under Rule 701 because testimony was “based on their contemporaneous perceptions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).