green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.5 score
“when the purpose of the testimony is to direct the jury's understanding of the legal standards upon which their verdict must be based, the testimony cannot be allowed. in no instance can a witness be permitted to define the law of the case”
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Amcast Industrial Corp. v. Detrex Corp.
when the purpose of the testimony is to direct the jury's understanding of the legal standards upon which their verdict must be based, the testimony cannot be allowed. in no instance can a witness be permitted to define the law of the case
discussed
Cited "see"
Troudt v. Oracle Corp.
See Specht v. Jensen , 853 F.2d 805 , 808 (10th Cir. 1988) (en banc), cert. denied , 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989). "[W]hen the purpose of the testimony is to direct the jury's understanding of the legal standards upon which their verdict must be based, the testimony cannot be allowed." Id. at 810 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Moriarty v. Board of County Commissioners
See Simpson, 7 F.3d at 188 (citing Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 808 (10th Cir.1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989) (expert would usurp jury’s role because his testimony would be to an “array of legal conclusions touching upon nearly every element of the plaintiffs burden of proof’)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Blanke v. Alexander
See Specht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d 1516, 1528 (10th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989) (district court’s refusal to grant new trial motion alleging excessive damages is afforded considerable deference on appeal).
discussed
Cited "see"
Blanke v. Alexander
See Specht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d 1516, 1528 (10th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989) (district court's refusal to grant new trial motion alleging excessive damages is afforded considerable deference on appeal).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. Feiger, Collison & Killmer
(2×)
See Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989); see also Boettcher DTC Building Joint Venture v. Falcon Ventures, 762 P.2d 788 (Colo.App.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Hudson
See Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 808 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Leo E. Kingston, Jr.
See Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 810 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bailey v. Kenney
See Specht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d 1516, 1523 (10th Cir.1987) (objective reasonableness of official action does not resolve whether constitutional violation occurred), aff 'd in part and rev’d on other ground, 853 F.2d 805 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hoffman v. People
See Specht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d 1516 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989); U.S. v. Burns, 624 F.2d 95 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 954 , 101 S.Ct. 361 , 66 L.Ed.2d 219 (1980); People v. Rayford, 725 P.2d 1142 (Colo.1986); People v. Hill, 690 P.2d 856 (Colo.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Schurrer
See also Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 810 (10th Cir.1988) (en banc) ("In no instance can a witness be permitted to define the law of the case."), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerry E. Wells, United States of America v. Kenneth R. Steele, United States of America, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Jerry E. Wells, Appellee/cross-Appellant, United States of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Kenneth R. Steele, Appellant/cross-Appellee
See, e.g., Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 807 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989); United States v. DiDomenico, 985 F.2d 1159, 1164 (2d Cir.1993) (instruction on the law is the function of the court, not a defense expert).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wells
See, e.g., Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 807 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989); United States v. DiDomenico, 985 F.2d 1159, 1164 (2d Cir.1993) (instruction on the law is the function of the court, not a defense expert).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerry v. Rice
See also Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir.1988) (en banc), cert, denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989), and 3 Jack B.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. William A. Simpson
See, e.g., Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 808 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989); but see id. at 814 (Seymour, J., dissenting) (more appropriate rationale for exclusion of such evidence is lack of helpfulness to jury).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hygh v. Jacobs
Marx, 550 F.2d at 512 ; see also Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 808-09 (10th Cir.1988) (in banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
The danger is that the jury may think that the "expert" in the particular branch of the law knows more than the judge--surely an inadmissible inference in our system of law. 27 Marx, 550 F.2d at 512 ; see also Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805, 808-09 (10th Cir.1988) (in banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989). 28 In this case, Professor Cox was questioned extensively concerning Jacobs' use of force.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wesley Willie
(2×)
Obviously, it would be most confusing to a jury to have legal material introduced as evidence and then argued as to what the law is or ought to be.” 10 Cooley v. United States, 501 F.2d 1249, 1253-54 (9th Cir. 1974) (excluded portions of Congressional Record, IRS Training Manual and Supreme Court opinions) (cited with approval in United States v. Harrold, 796 F.2d 1275, 1285 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1037 , 107 S.Ct. 892 , 93 L.Ed.2d 844 (1987)), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1123 , 95 S.Ct. 809 , 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975); see United States v. Mann, 884 F.2d 532, 538 (10th Cir.1989) (cas…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mcewen v. City Of Norman
See also Bannister v. Town of Noble, Okla., 812 F.2d 1265, 1271 (10th Cir.1987). 31 In Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir.1988), cert. denied 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989), cited and relied upon by plaintiff, we held that a legal expert should not have been permitted to give testimony relative to legal conclusions he drew from the evidence presented--that there had been a search of the residence--because such opinion testimony interfered with the trial judge's role as sole arbiter of the law.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Heltborg v. Modern MacHinery
(2×)
See e.g., Specht v. Jensen (10th Cir.1988), 853 F.2d 805 , cert denied, 488 U.S. 1008 , 109 S.Ct. 792 , 102 L.Ed.2d 783 (1989) (opinion by expert attorney on whether defendants' conduct involved a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment was a legal conclusion and should not have been allowed); Owen v. Kerr-McGee Corp. (5th Cir.1983), 698 F.2d 236 (opinion by expert as to legal cause of accident was properly disallowed); Marx & Co., Inc. v. Diners' Club, Inc. (2nd *958 Cir.1977), 550 F.2d 505 , cert denied, 434 U.S. 861 , 98 S.Ct. 188 , 54 L.Ed.2d 134 (1977) (trial court erred in al…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thanh Vong Hoai
v.
Thanh Van Vo
v.
Thanh Van Vo
No. 88-765.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 1989.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. Indiana (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.