Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Clearly it's relevant,lso long as the charge stands. If the charge were that weak, the judge would have dismissed it. So, I see it that the judge dismissed these analysts' testimony on Daubert grounds, or on specific relevance: that they do not represent and cannot testify about the "reasonable" investor because they are analysts, not every-day investors.
|
I think it was, this is the question the jury must decide themselves, and the expert testimony would not be helpful to that effort. Sort of like trying a defamation case, where the defendant called someone a thief, and getting experts to opine whether hearing one called a thief would affect your opinion of that person. It's something the jurors don't need "expert" help with.
