No. 18-5557
Matthew Joseph Bussing v. Michigan
IFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion civil-procedure civil-rights due-process evidence expert-testimony expert-witness standard-of-review supreme-court-precedent
Latest Conference:
2018-10-12
Question Presented (from Petition)
The Court abused its discretion when it permitted a rebuttal witness who was an expert in pediatric child abuse to testify outside her competency on biomechanical engineering issues where the testimony: 1) did not satisfy the foundational requirements of MRE 702, 2) had a tendency to unfairly prejudice the defense.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the court abused its discretion in permitting a rebuttal witness who was not an expert in pediatric child abuse to testify outside his competence on biomechanical engineering issues
Docket Entries
2018-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.
2018-05-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 12, 2018)
Attorneys
Matthew Joseph Bussing
Matthew Joseph Bussing — Petitioner