Sources
Loading...
Additional media
Loading...
DeepNewz, mobile.
People-sourced. AI-powered. Unbiased News.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued several rulings, including a 6-3 decision in Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon where Justice Kagan sided with the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution case. In another 6-3 ruling in Diaz v. United States, the Court held that expert testimony on group mental states does not violate FRE Rule 704(b). Additionally, in Gonzalez v. Trevino, the Court narrowly sided with the plaintiff in a retaliatory arrest claim, criticizing the Fifth Circuit's analysis.
Supreme Court grants leeway to prosecutors to use expert testimony at trial https://t.co/4vpm37edsc
Justice Gorsuch's very well-done dissent hints at the more fundamental problem with this sort of "expert" testimony: It rarely satisfies Rule 702. There's no predicate--other than drug courier convictions themselves!--for a law enforcement agent such as the one here ... [1] https://t.co/NKb6DQNwBi
Although there have been no 4A cases at SCOTUS for a few Terms, the Court did invent a tort for malicious prosecution a while back that they (weirdly) claim is based in the 4A. And they had a case on it today, Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon. https://t.co/4TyC0Kdnji #N https://t.co/lKS103NLcv
