United States v. Tin Yat Chin, AKA Tan C. Dau

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that Rule 901 does not establish a particularly high hurdle, and that hurdle may be cleared by circumstantial evidence
• observing that Fed. R. Evid. 901 only requires “sufficient proof . . . so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification,” which is not “a particularly high hurdle”
• “To determine whether a witness qualifies as an expert, courts compare the area in which the witness has superior knowledge, education, experience, or skill with the subject matter of the proffered testimony.”
• “To determine whether a witness qualifies as an expert, courts compare the area in which the witness has superior knowledge, education, experience, or skill with the subject matter of the proffered testimony.”
• “To determine whether a witness qualifies as an expert, courts compare the area in which the witness has superior knowledge, education, experience, or skill with the subject matter of the proffered testimony.”
• “The proponent is not required to rule out all possibilities inconsistent with 5 authenticity, or to prove beyond any doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be.” 6 (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).