A shop owner tells a court she saw a white car before a crash and says, 'The car seemed to be moving too fast for the street.' The opposing attorney challenges this testimony, arguing the shop owner cannot comment on the car's speed. Should this testimony be admitted as a lay opinion under the Federal Rules of Evidence?
The court should allow it because eyewitness testimony is typically admissible in court.
The court should exclude it because the shop owner’s opinion lacks a clear basis in observable facts.
The court should exclude it because assessing vehicle speed before a crash often requires expert analysis.
The court should allow it because her statement reflects her personal observations and does not rely on specialized knowledge.
Under Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a layperson can offer an opinion if it is rationally based on their perception, helpful to understanding their testimony or a fact in issue, and not grounded in scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. The shop owner's statement about the car's speed is based on her own observations and does not require technical expertise, such as calculating exact velocity. Therefore, it is admissible as a lay opinion because it helps the fact-finder evaluate what she observed. Testimony would become inadmissible, however, if it involved speculation or lacked a clear connection to her perceptions. For example, if the shop owner had no opportunity to observe the car clearly, the objection might succeed. Expert testimony is generally necessary for more technical conclusions, such as precise speed calculations derived from physical evidence.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence?