Van Cox v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• precluding expert testimony that an officer “did not act reasonably under the circumstances” because such testimony “intrude[s] on the jury’s exclusive role as the finder of facts”
• affirming district court’s preclusion of expert testimony concerning the reasonableness of an officer’s actions in an excessive force case because it “intrude[d] on the jury’s exclusive role as the finder of facts.”
• remanding case “for a new trial” because of improper jury instruction
• “[T]he operative question in excessive force cases is whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of search or seizure.”
• expert testimony not admissible if it usurps the role of the jury to apply the law to the facts before it
• expert testimony not admissible if it usurps the role of the jury to apply the law to the facts before it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).