Opinion ID: 691307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: expert discourse testimony

Text: 47 Campbell also challenges the district court's refusal to allow Dr. Roger Shuy to testify as an expert. Campbell attempted to call Dr. Shuy as a linguistics expert to testify about the tape-recorded conversations. The court permitted him only to testify as a lay witness, concluding that expert testimony was unnecessary where the tapes were already before the jury and their content within the jury's general knowledge. 48 A  'district court has broad discretion regarding the admission or exclusion of expert testimony, and reversal of a decision on these matters is appropriate only when discretion has been abused.'  Clarke, 24 F.3d at 268 (quoting Joy v. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., 999 F.2d 549, 567 (D.C.Cir.1993)). Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits expert testimony if the expert possesses scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In this case, the district court was well within its discretion in concluding that expert testimony was unnecessary to elucidate tape recorded conversations. Such material not only involves matters of general knowledge, but is squarely within the traditional province of the jury. See United States v. Edelman, 873 F.2d 791, 795 (5th Cir.1989) (no abuse of discretion to exclude Dr. Shuy's testimony because it concerned matters within the common knowledge of the jury); United States v. Devine, 787 F.2d 1086, (7th Cir.1986) (upholding exclusion of Dr. Shuy's testimony because it would  'not have given the jury significant help in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, and understanding what is said in a tape recorded conversation is not outside the average person's understanding' ) (quoting Dist.Ct.Op. of Dec. 17, 1984).