Opinion ID: 880247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the jury to hear character evidence regarding the criminality of BMC and by allowing the jury to hear the expert opinion testimony of Officer Cantrell, asserting that gang members generally commit crimes and violent acts? 2. Whether the district court erred in failing to suppress Ken Hust’s eyewitness identification as unnecessarily suggestive and unreliable due to pre-trial procedures that were used by the police? 3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by preventing defense expert, Dr. Reisberg, from testifying about the specific procedures used by the police during Ken Hust’s eyewitness identification? 4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing Lieutenant Steele’s testimony interpreting the surveillance video and opining that Almaraz was standing in a “shooter’s crouch” just before Flores was shot? 5. Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding the State had laid a proper foundation to support admitting the testimony of Grant Fredericks, a video expert, regarding the precise moment Flores was shot? 6. Whether the accumulation of errors in the trial deprived Almaraz of a fair trial? 7. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Almaraz’ Motion for a New Trial?