Opinion ID: 2758259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of the Facts

Text: Detective Stigerts acknowledged that he was not familiar with the facts in the case. Based on this acknowledgment, Mr. Brinson contends that Detective Stigerts’ testimony was not reliable. 2 The district court 2 In his reply brief, Mr. Brinson argues that the district court should have made specific findings on reliability. Mr. Brinson’s Reply Br. at 3-4. This argument had not appeared in Mr. Brinson’s opening brief. Thus, the argument was waived. See United States v. Abdenbi, 361 F.3d 1282, 1289 (10th Cir. 2004) (“The failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives the issue.”). 8 acted within its discretion in concluding that the testimony was reliable because it did not require a review of Mr. Brinson’s case. Rather than testify about case-specific facts, the detective testified about characteristics of the prostitution trade. That kind of testimony would not require review of case-specific facts. See Fed. R. Evid. 702, 2000 advisory committee notes (stating that “it might . . . be important in some cases for an expert to educate the factfinder about general principles, without ever attempting to apply these principles to the specific facts of the case”). As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Detective Stigerts to testify as an expert regarding the prostitution trade.