United States v. Wen Chyu Liu

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to consider offer of proof made in motion for new trial and limiting review to the trial record to determine whether exclusion of expert witness was error
• finding error in the exclusion of “an expert in chemical engineering, process design, and project engineering,” based on a lack of experience with the specific type of chemical plant at issue
• “A lack of specialization should generally go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility”
• “[E]ven if the court erred in excluding the testimony, we will not vacate a conviction ... unless the error was harmful, affecting a substantial right of the complaining party.”
• “A lack of specialization should generally go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility . . . .”
• “[A] lack of specialization does not affect the admissibility of the opinion, but only its weight.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).