{"id":"LAW-485","kind":"law","level":"law","jurisdiction":"","state":"","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","authority":"Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1992)","instrument":"Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1992)","title":"Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1992)","dateIssued":"1992-04-09","effective":"","end":"","startDate":"1992-04-09","endDate":"","quarters":[],"types":[],"addressees":[],"clause":"","enforcement":"","functions":[],"notes":"\u0027This circuit is in accord with other circuits in requiring exclusion of expert testimony that expresses a legal conclusion\u0027 (at 363); \u0027Even if a jury were not misled into adopting outright a legal conclusion proffered by an expert witness, the testimony would remain objectionable by communicating a legal standard -- explicit or implicit -- to the jury\u0027 (at 364); the testimony \u0027regarding the ultimate legal conclusion entrusted to the jury crossed the line and should have been excluded\u0027 (at 364).","sourceUrl":"https://static.case.law/f2d/961/html/0359-01.html","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":253983,"grade":"primary","character":"case","description":"","collection":"LEG-D","url":"/library/LAW-485","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/LAW-485","citation":"United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1992) (Apr. 9, 1992) (Ex. LAW-485)","stateName":"","related":[]}