No. 18-5747
Javier Amador-Flores v. United States
Tags: circuit-split criminal-procedure evidence evidence-law expert-testimony federal-rules-of-evidence law-enforcement lay-opinion lay-opinion-testimony lay-testimony specialized-knowledge witness-testimony
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2018-10-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a law-enforcement agent expressly compares the events in a case to what is typical in other cases he has investigated, is his opinion based on 'specialized knowledge,' and therefore admissible only as expert-opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED When a law-enforcement agent expressly compares the events in a case to what is typical in other cases he has investigated, is his opinion based on “specialized knowledge,” and therefore admissible only as expert-opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702?
Docket Entries
2018-10-09
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
2018-09-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-08-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 1, 2018)
2018-06-22
Application (17A1398) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until August 30, 2018.
2018-06-20
Application (17A1398) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 1, 2018 to August 30, 2018, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
Attorneys
Javier Amador-Flores
Howard A. Pincus — Fed Pub. Def. for Dist. CO &WY, Petitioner
Howard A. Pincus — Fed Pub. Def. for Dist. CO &WY, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent