Impact of Supreme Court's Ruling On Expert Intent Testimony In 'Diaz v. United States'

The Supreme Court held that expert testimony in a criminal case, as to whether "most people" similar to the defendant have a particular mental state, does not run afoul of the Federal Rule of Evidence'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.