Hubbard v. Gross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Dr. Cox sought to opine on what is a reasonable use of force, and that issue is within the competence of a lay jury. The district court reasoned that the proffered testimony was 'unnecessary' and 'would consist of legal conclusions.' Unnecessary expert testimony may be excluded. See Salem v. United States Lines Co. , 370 U.S. 31 , 35, * * * (1962) (stating, 'expert testimony not only is unnecessary but indeed may properly be excluded in the discretion of the trial judge if all the primary facts can be accurately and intelligibly described to the jury, and if they, as men of common understanding, are as capable of comprehending the primary facts and of drawing correct conclusions from them' (internal quotations omitted). Because testimony about whether the officers used reasonable force is a legal conclusion and may confuse the trier of fact, the district court is within its sound discretion to exclude it. See, e.g. , Pena v. Leombruni , 200 F.3d 1031 , 1034 (7th Cir.1999) (holding that a jury is not assisted by expert testimony on what level of force is appropriate under the circumstances). If the jury believed that Hubbard was being violent, the jury did not need expert opinion to determine whether it was reasonable to spray, cuff and restrain Hubbard.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Truckey