United States v. Vinal S. Duncan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that expert testimony is also inadmissible if it “undertakes to tell the jury what result to reach,” thereby “attempting] to substitute the expert’s judgment for the jury’s.”
• explaining that expert testimony should not “tell the jury what result to reach” but “aid the jury in making a decision”
• stating that conspirators intended to both “seize for themselves two pieces of property at a bargain” and “sell the properties to the bank at a premium”
• holding expert wit nesses “act[] outside of [their] limited role” when they “attempt!] to substitute [their] judgment for the jury’s”
• finding that an IRS agent’s expert testimony and “factual conclusions” as to the falsity of certain IRS filings was admissible in a prosecution for bank fraud and conspiracy
• stating that conspirators intended to both \seize for 8 themselves two pieces of property at a bargain\ and \sell the 9 properties to the bank at a premium\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).