Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of experience, training or specialized knowledge withih the realm of an' expert, but because of the particularized' knowledge that the witness has by virtue of his-or herposition in the business. - The amendment does not purport to change this analysis. See also Tampa Bay Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. Cedar Shipping Co., Ltd., 320 F.3d 1213, 1217-23 (11th Cir.2003), However, Rule 701 “does not distinguish between expert and lay witnesses, but rather between expert and lay testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. 701, Advisory Committee Note to the 2000 Amendment (emphasis original). Thus, within the testimony of a single witness, one opinion may fall under Rule 701 and another under Rule 702- Id.; see also. Lebron v. Secretary of Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 772 F.3d 1352, 1372 (11th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 303 Fed.Appx. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that while a lay witnesses may testify about their own immediate perceptions under rule 701 testimony that blurs into supposition and extrapolation crosses the line into expertise (B) holding that a lay witness could not opine about whether something constituted a compelling state interest because it required legal expertise (C) recognizing rule (D) recognizing that a common illustration of an admissible opinion under rule 701 is an expression of opinion by a lay observer of a cars speed (E) holding the testimony admissible as that of a skilled witness under indianas r 701
Output (English): holding that a lay witness could not opine about whether something constituted a compelling state interest because it required legal expertise