Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ibn-Tamas v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided October 15, 1979No. 12614Published

1DissentNebeker, Associate Judge

The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. First, the trial judge acted in accordance with the law in rejecting the testimony. Second, regardless of the trial judge’s ruling or the basis of his ruling, the proffered expert testimony was inadmissible because as a matter of law, (1) it was irrelevant to any material issue in the case and (2) it did not meet two of the three Dyas tests for the admissibility of expert testimony. Therefore, assuming, arguendo, that the trial judge failed to rule in accord-*647anee with the law, the harmless error doctrine bars any remand. See D.C.Code 1973, §…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  3. M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
  4. Helvering v. GowranSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  5. United States v. Dennis Essington Green, United States of America v. Daniel S. FranoCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1977

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API