Percelle v. Pearson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150629 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016):
Defendants next argue that Subia should be precluded from summarizing the testimony of other witnesses and from offering his opinion on the credibility of those witnesses. The credibility of witnesses is a matter to be decided by the jury and is thus not an appropriate subject of expert testimony. See United States v. Barnard, 490 F.2d 907, 912-13 (9th Cir.1973) (trial court properly excluded psychiatric and psychological testimony as to credibility of a prosecution witness). Subia is precluded from opining directly on the credibility of other witnesses. He may, however, summarize the testimony of other witnesses as a basis for his own expert opinion.
Share this article: