Opinion ID: 1196435
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lieutenant Russo's Expert Testimony

Text: Mary Lou next argues the district court abused its discretion in excluding the expert testimony of Lieutenant Russo. We review the district court's decision to exclude expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard. Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa, 557 F.3d 564, 570 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 143, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997)). Mary Lou concede[s] that expert testimony [was] not required for a jury to figure out that a policeman should not squeeze an elderly woman's breast, but Mary Lou maintains Lieutenant Russo's testimony would have assisted the trier of fact in understanding the totality of the circumstances. We agree Lieutenant Russo's testimony was not necessary to prove Mary Lou's claim, and the testimony was not helpful to the trier of fact on any material issue. Because we concluded above that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the totality of the circumstances evidence, we similarly find the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Lieutenant Russo's testimony.