In Diaz v. United States, 144 S.Ct. 1727 (2024), a divided court held that expert testimony in a criminal case, as to whether “most people” in the defendant’s position have a particular mental state, does not run afoul of Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)’s prohibition against expert opinion evidence about whether a criminal defendant had or lacked the mental state required for conviction. Particularly in white-collar cases, where the defendant’s intent is often the central disputed issue, the implications of Diaz may be far-reaching.
This presentation will explore the background and contours of Rule 704(b), examine Diaz and other decisions relevant to the Rule, and consider defense strategies in a post-Diaz landscape.
Attendees will explore the burgeoning realm of the metaverse and its growing significance in daily l...
AI provides exciting opportunities for lawyers to supplement their legal expertise and complete task...
This program examines the purchase and sale of a business. As the end game of any transaction is the...
The CLE will discuss the role of New York Labor Law Section 201-d in regulating employee conduct ins...
AI is changing everything about the way we deliver legal services. But what is generative AI and how...
Insurance bad faith claims can increase litigation risks for insurers. The claims are often tort rat...
Technology empowers – but also enormously enlarges the risks facing lawyers and law firms. It&...
This program has two parts. The first part examines the disciplines required to prepare contracts th...
As any of the recent legal news stories about artificial intelligence clarify, the legal world becom...
Many lawyers believe that sexual harassment has been eradicated in the legal profession through the ...