Did the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit err in failing to award the Petitioner a new trial due to the District Court's error in allowing the government to introduce expert witness testimony in the form of lay witness testimony?

Question Presented For Review Did the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court when it failed to award the Petitioner a new trial as the result of error in the District Court where the Court allowed the government to introduce expert witness testimony in the form of lay witness testimony?