Opinion ID: 3012451
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: standard of review

Text: In reviewing a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony, we apply the abuse of discretion standard. See General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142-43 (1997). Under that standard we will not reverse such a ruling under Rule 403 unless it is arbitrary and irrational. Robert S. v. Stetson School, Inc., 256 F.3d 159, 169 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). [A] trial court is in a far better position than an appellate court to strike the sensitive balance dictated by Rule 403. When a trial court engages in such a balancing process and articulates on the record the rationale for its conclusion, its conclusions should rarely be disturbed. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Pinney, 967 F.2d 912, 917-18 (3d Cir. 1992). When reviewing a jury charge where the objection is properly preserved, our inquiry is whether the charge, 'taken as a whole, properly apprises the jury of the issues and the applicable law. Smith v. Borough of Wilkinsburg, 147 F.3d 272, 74 (3d Cir. 1998). It is the inescapable duty of the trial judge to instruct the jurors, fully and correctly, on the applicable law of the case, and to guide, direct, and assist them toward an intelligent understanding of the legal and factual issues involved in their search for truth. 9A Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2556 at 438 (2d ed. 1995).