Opinion ID: 880224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

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 the criminality of gangs generally. 2. Whether the district court erred in failing to suppress Hust’s eyewitness identification as unreliable due to suggestive practices used by the police. 3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by preventing the defense expert, Dr. Reisberg, from testifying about the specific interview procedures used by the police during Hust’s eyewitness identification. 4 4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing Lieutenant Steele’s testimony interpreting the surveillance video and describing Almaraz’s stance just before Flores was shot as a “shooter’s crouch.” 5. Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding the State laid a proper foundation to support admitting the testimony of Grant Fredericks, a video expert, regarding the precise moment Flores was shot.