Mitchell Epner: In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch makes the same point, more eloquently. "Jurors are more than up to performing that task, and they hardly need the help of some clairvoyant."

I really love the Court’s logic in this. “Look he didn’t testify that ALL Belgians is criminals. He just said that MOST Belgians is criminals. So it’s not, whatayacallit, discriminatory.”

SCOTUS protects religious freedom of DEA agents by allowing them to offer expert testimony of their belief that there’s no such thing as a blind mule

I do not think it even qualifies as expert testimony. Under Rule 702, expert testimony is *only* permitted if "the expert's . . . specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence . . . ." Jurors don't need testimony from LEOs to understand drugs are valuable & fungible.

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesseswww.law.cornell.edu

In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch makes the same point, more eloquently. "Jurors are more than up to performing that task, and they hardly need the help of some clairvoyant."

Post