United States v. Offill

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that expert testimony giving a legal conclusion was properly admitted given the technical legal issues involved with federal securities laws
• ruling that expert testimony helps explain “unfamiliar terms and concepts”
• noting that it does not help the jury for an expert to give testimony that merely states legal standards or draws legal conclusions by applying the law at issue to the facts of the case
• noting that it does not help the jury for an expert to give testimony that merely states legal standards or draws legal conclusions by applying the law at issue to the facts of the case
• noting that “courts and commentators have consistently concluded that expert testimony that ordinarily might be excluded on the ground that it gives legal conclusions may nonetheless be admitted in cases that involve highly technical legal issues”
• noting 18 that experts would not give “opinions as to conduct being illegal manipulation, or that a party has acted unlawfully, or that an entity or individual is liable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).