699 (1996) (“expert opinion testimony is not rendered inadmissible on the basis that it embraces ultimate issues to be determined by the jury”) State v. 702 (1999) (expert witness properly allowed to opine that gunshot wound to the head demonstrated “an intent to cause death”) State v. 268 (2001) (expert witness properly allowed to opine that victim’s death was a “homicide”) State v. 602 (2005) (officer properly permitted to give lay opinion that defendant was “impaired,” based on officer’s perceptions and observations of defendant at the accident scene, interviews with witnesses, and odor of alcohol) State v. 106 (2004), aff’d in part and modified in part on other grounds, 359 N.C. Opinion on Ultimate Issue AllowedĬases interpreting Rule 704 have permitted both lay and expert opinion testimony about a wide range of “ultimate issues” to be decided in the case (such as impairment, intent, causation, nature of injuries, and self-defense) as long as the opinion is based on a proper foundation and helpful to the trier of fact. 110 (2011) (officer’s lay opinion testimony in the form of an assertion that defendant “was, indeed, the offender in this case” was error, because it was not helpful to the jury – the statement was “solely and simply an opinion of the ultimate issue of Defendant’s guilt”). 749 (1986) (arson expert’s opinion in a homicide case that a flammable liquid was burning on the floor and “trailing” towards the kitchen was not objectionable on the grounds that it embraced an ultimate issue about causation to be decided by the jury) with State v. CNBC's Eamon Javers contributed to this report.Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.Īlthough opinion testimony from a lay or expert witness might be objectionable for any number of reasons (e.g., relevance, prejudice, or lack of personal knowledge), Rule 704 clarifies that opinion testimony is not objectionable simply because it addresses an “ultimate issue” that the trier of fact has to decide, such as whether an element of the offense has been proved. Joseph Evangelisti, a spokesman for JPMorgan, in an email to CNBC said, "Plaintiffs like the headlines, but no amount of time on the record will change the fact that Jamie never met the man, never worked with the man, and wishes in hindsight the man had never been a client of the firm." "This pattern of producing documents from the custodial files of witnesses after their depositions has persisted throughout the discovery period." "For example, the weekend prior to the close of fact discovery, and immediately after the May 26 deposition of its CEO Jamie Dimon, JPMC produced 1,500 documents, some of which came from the custodial files of witnesses whose depositions had long passed," McCawley wrote. "Despite the Court's clear warning, JPMC still failed to expeditiously produce documents from the custodial files of key witnesses, some of whom had already been deposed, for strategic reasons," the lawyer wrote. McCawley noted that Rakoff in May had admonished JPMorgan for turning over documents to the plaintiff's legal team "at an inexplicably slow rate." Dimon, with this document during his deposition had it been produced in a timely manner," the filing said. "Plaintiff would have confronted JPMC's CEO, Mr. and yet waited to do so until 2019 despite the myriad red flags and public reports about Epstein's conduct over the years," the filing said. "These documents demonstrate that JPMC was fully capable of learning the full extent of Epstein and Staley's personal relationship. One late-produced document was a timeline that among other things referenced emails in which a then-top bank executive Jes Staley asks Epstein a question. One such document, turned over after Dimon's deposition was taken May 26, "appears to refer to a 2019 internal review of electronic communications with Jeffrey Epstein, conducted after Epstein's 2019 arrest and death," according to the filing. In addition to Dimon, the accuser's lawyers want to reopen the depositions of Mary Erdoes, who is CEO of JPMorgan's asset and wealth management division Mary Casey, who was Epstein's banker for about a decade at JPMorgan and a fourth person, only identified in the filing as JPMorgan's "representative."Īll four would be asked about documents turned over only after their initial depositions, the filing said. Personal Loans for 670 Credit Score or Lower Personal Loans for 580 Credit Score or Lower Best Debt Consolidation Loans for Bad Credit
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |