” (Marshall declaration, page 10, lines 1-6) Grounds for Objection 19: improper legal opinion (Evid. Code § 801; Summers v. Gilbert, 69 Cal, App. 4th 1155, 180 (1999); opinion based onimproper matter (Evid. Code § 803); lacks nundation(Evid.

As shown above, an expert may properly rely on inadmissible hearsay so long as it is the type of material reasonably relied upon by an expert forming an opinion on the subject. See In re Fields, 51 Cal. 3d at 1070; Evid. Code § 801(d). Respondent admits that Dr. Gomez’s findings are proper to the extent they rely on Dr. Gomez’s interview with Mr. Benavides and his administration of the Psychopathy Check List-Revised.

3. There was No Foundation for Dr. Fukumoto to Give an Expert Opinion Concerning Whetherthe Injuries Were Inflicted Before Death and Were “Extremely Painful” a. Introduction In addition to Evidence Code Section 801, which addresses the subject matter of expert opinion, California law imposes specific requirements for the qualification of the particular expert witness. Evidence Code Section 720 states in relevantpart: A personis qualified to testify as an expert if he has special knowledge,skills, experience, training or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates. Against the objection of a party, such special knowledge, skill, experience,training, or education mustbe shownbefore the witness maytestify as an expert.

(In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 363.) In addition, as discussed ante, allowing Detective Oppelt to testify about his opinion about what was depicted in the videotapes violates California Evidence Code, sections 702, 800 and 801. The admission of this evidence therefore violated a state-created liberty interest protected from arbitrary infringement by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution.

Counsel should have developed additional reasonably available information regarding Mr. Bell’s and his family’s substance abuse history and other multigenerational psychosocial history (see, e.g., Amended Petition Claim Four) that would have informed Dr. Caldwell’s expert 115 opinion (and that of Drs. Levak and Smith or any qualified social historian or psychological expert) and provided powerful mitigation evidence for the jury. See Cal. Evid. Code § 801 (West 2010) (materials relied upon by experts). Additional information would have “substantially affected [Dr.

That means thatat the time of his personalobservations ofthe (alleged) innercircle ofthe Raymond Avenue Crips (summer 1980), Williams had been assignedto the detail for perhaps one year.— California Evidence Code section 801, subdivision(a), limits expert opinion to subjects sufficiently beyond the range ofcommon experience that the opinion of ® In the summer of 1980, Mr. Shepard, by contrast, would have hadfive years of assignmentto an exclusively gang detail. (See Exhibit 4A.) 103 an expert is of assistance to the jury.