Whether the testimony of Sergeant Helms establishes the required mens rea and violates evidentiary rules and constitutional standards

1. Does the two officer ’s testimony at trial, particularly Sergeant Helms ’ testimony establish the required mens rea for the offense? 2. How does the testimony by Helms conflict with Rule 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence? 3. Does that testimony violate the plain error standard under the Supreme Court ’s decision in “Diaz ”? 4. Does Counsel have to specifically ask experts to distinguish between “most people ” or “all people ”? 5. How much weight does the prosecutor ’s statements have upon a jury? So much as to render a guilty verdict by offering an expert to testify as his opinion is fact? 6. Since it is a constitutional violation, does the Government have to prove hannlessness beyond a reasonable doubt? 7. Does using hypothetical with experts on the stand during trial establish an opinion that can be construed as fact with the jury? 8. Does the expert ’s testimony in the mens rea context “in his expert opinion ” close the door entirely on another possibility for the Defendant possessing the drugs for any other reason than for sales? 9. Does the alleged violation impact the Defendant ’s right to a fair trial? 10. To what extent was Sergeant Helms ’ testimony critical in establishing the intent of the Defendant? 11. Could the case have been decided on other evidence alone? 12. What is the relevance of associating intent based on quantity to determining use versus distribution?