Attorney As Expert

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed a criminal conviction for securities fraud. Among other things, the court held that the trial court did not commit eror in admitting the testimony of an attorney expert:

…appellate courts use the deferential erroneous exercise of discretion standard when reviewing a circuit court’s decision to admit expert testimony.  We are satisfied that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in admitting [attorney] Cohen’s testimony, because the circuit court’s decision rested on a reasonable basis and was in accordance with both accepted legal standards and the facts in the record.  Cohen’s testimony was the type of expert testimony that was envisioned by Wis. Stat. § 907.02, because it encompassed specialized financial knowledge that would assist the jury in understanding the evidence presented at LaCount’s trial.  Such testimony also could assist the jury in determining a fact in issue in the case, here, whether LaCount’s transaction with Wills involved a security.

Further, the expert testimony did not improperly involve an ultimate fact. (Mike Frisch)