Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Court hears arguments over whether undercover detective’s testimony crossed from fact into expert opinion
Summary
In State v. Hernandez, defense counsel argued that undercover detective testimony (including repeated references to "typical John behavior" and that the defendant "agreed" to an exchange) comprised improper legal conclusions and inadmissible anecdotal profiling; the State maintained most testimony was lay and contextually probative.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Hernandez over whether portions of detective testimony should have been excluded as improper expert opinion or legal conclusions. Defense counsel argued that Detective Rupp’s descriptions went beyond lay recollection and effectively told the jury the legal result (that the defendant "agreed" to a *** act in exchange for money), and that testimony about "typical John behavior" amounted to anecdotal…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
