State's motion appears well taken, to me. I know in civil cases, the expert is allowed to literally step into the shoes of the jury, and "render a verdict" on the ultimate conclusion. Obviously, the jury can reject the expert's opinion, but the expert can assert an opinion, based on his knowledge and experience that "the product is defective," for example. That conclusion results in liability, if the jury agrees with it.
I'm looking forward to the defense response to this motion. Recall Mantei's argument in the Frye hearing, that the jury is free to reject the conclusions of an expert, and that the jury should be allowed to hear the expert's opinion. That breaks down here, IMO, because the expert is not applying "expertise" to anything more complex than the jury instructions. In fact, the expert is directly referring to law that will eventually be parsed into jury instructions, and applying a sort of "if you believe Zimmerman's account, then" logic, to find the use of force was "reasonable."Martinez v State, 761 So.2d 1074
Notice Mantei did not attack the expert's qualifications.