NR 706 BOARD EVALUATION 2026
GUARANTEED PASS ANSWERS GRADED A+
● Rule 702 Answer: permits non-expert lay witnesses to testify to an
opinion or inference if it is based upon personal knowledge and helpful
to the jury.
● Lay Opinions Answer: Under Rule 701, a witness can give his or her
own general, non-technical opinions or impressions about what
happened in the case, but only about certain matters that he or she
actually witnessed or perceived first-hand.
● United States v. Yazzie
1992 Answer: Rule of Law
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a lay witness may give opinion
testimony if the testimony is rationally based on the witness's perception
and is helpful to a clear understanding of the testimony or the
determination of a fact at issue.
Facts
Johnny Yazzie (defendant) had sexual intercourse with a female victim
who was 15-and-a-half years old at the time. Yazzie was charged with
the statutory rape of a minor, to which reasonable mistake was a defense.
Yazzie defended himself on the ground that he reasonably believed the
victim was 16 years old on the night in question. Yazzie sought to
,introduce the testimony of several witnesses regarding the victim's age.
Specifically, Yazzie sought to introduce testimony that the witnesses
believed the victim was 16 years old on the night in question. The
district court permitted the witnesses to testify to the victim's appearance
on that night, including that she was smoking cigarettes, was driving,
was wearing makeup, and was fully developed physically. However, the
district court did not permit the witnesses to testify to their opinion about
the victim's age. Yazzie was convicted, and he appealed.
Issue
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, may a lay witness give opinion
testimony if the testimony is rationally based on the witness's perception
and is helpful to a clear understanding of the testimony or the
determination of a fact at issue?
Holding and Reasoning (Reinhardt, J.)
Yes. Under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 701, a lay witness may give
opinion testimony so long as the testimony is rationally based on the
witness's perception and is helpful to a clear understanding of the
witness's testimony or the determination of a fact at issue. Essentially,
FRE 701 permits lay opinion testimony where the facts could not be
adequately presented to the jury without the t
● Gorby v. Schneider Tank Lines, Inc
1984 Answer: Rule of Law
To be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, lay-witness
opinion testimony must be based on the witness's firsthand knowledge or
observation.
, Facts
Dennis Gorby was driving on a road when his pickup truck was hit by a
semi-tanker truck driven by David Welsch and owned by Schneider Tank
Lines, Inc. (Schneider) (defendant). Dennis was severely injured. Edith
Gorby (plaintiff), Dennis's wife, brought suit against Schneider. At trial,
Edith called Carl Highlan as a witness. Highlan had been traveling in the
opposite direction on the road and had seen the accident. There was no
evidence that Highlan had ever driven a semi-tanker or pickup truck.
There was also no evidence that Highlan was familiar with either type of
vehicle's safety features or acceleration and stopping times. On cross-
examination, Schneider asked for Highlan's opinion on two issues: (1)
whether Welsch did everything he could to avoid the accident, and (2)
whether Dennis could have avoided the accident. The district court
excluded Schneider's questions and Highlan's responses. The jury found
in favor of Edith. Schneider appealed.
Issue
To be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, must lay-witness
opinion testimony be based on the witness's firsthand knowledge or
observation?
Holding and Reasoning (Pell, J.)
Yes. Under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 701, a lay witness may give
opinion testimony only if the testimony is rationally based on the
witness's perception. Thus, lay-witness opinion testimony must be based
on the witness's firsthand knowledge or observation in order to be
admissible under FRE 701. In this case, the district court did not abuse
its discretion by excluding Highlan's opinion testimony. This testimony
was not based on Highlan's firsthand knowledge or observation. Highlan
did not have firsthand knowledge of wh
GUARANTEED PASS ANSWERS GRADED A+
● Rule 702 Answer: permits non-expert lay witnesses to testify to an
opinion or inference if it is based upon personal knowledge and helpful
to the jury.
● Lay Opinions Answer: Under Rule 701, a witness can give his or her
own general, non-technical opinions or impressions about what
happened in the case, but only about certain matters that he or she
actually witnessed or perceived first-hand.
● United States v. Yazzie
1992 Answer: Rule of Law
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a lay witness may give opinion
testimony if the testimony is rationally based on the witness's perception
and is helpful to a clear understanding of the testimony or the
determination of a fact at issue.
Facts
Johnny Yazzie (defendant) had sexual intercourse with a female victim
who was 15-and-a-half years old at the time. Yazzie was charged with
the statutory rape of a minor, to which reasonable mistake was a defense.
Yazzie defended himself on the ground that he reasonably believed the
victim was 16 years old on the night in question. Yazzie sought to
,introduce the testimony of several witnesses regarding the victim's age.
Specifically, Yazzie sought to introduce testimony that the witnesses
believed the victim was 16 years old on the night in question. The
district court permitted the witnesses to testify to the victim's appearance
on that night, including that she was smoking cigarettes, was driving,
was wearing makeup, and was fully developed physically. However, the
district court did not permit the witnesses to testify to their opinion about
the victim's age. Yazzie was convicted, and he appealed.
Issue
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, may a lay witness give opinion
testimony if the testimony is rationally based on the witness's perception
and is helpful to a clear understanding of the testimony or the
determination of a fact at issue?
Holding and Reasoning (Reinhardt, J.)
Yes. Under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 701, a lay witness may give
opinion testimony so long as the testimony is rationally based on the
witness's perception and is helpful to a clear understanding of the
witness's testimony or the determination of a fact at issue. Essentially,
FRE 701 permits lay opinion testimony where the facts could not be
adequately presented to the jury without the t
● Gorby v. Schneider Tank Lines, Inc
1984 Answer: Rule of Law
To be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, lay-witness
opinion testimony must be based on the witness's firsthand knowledge or
observation.
, Facts
Dennis Gorby was driving on a road when his pickup truck was hit by a
semi-tanker truck driven by David Welsch and owned by Schneider Tank
Lines, Inc. (Schneider) (defendant). Dennis was severely injured. Edith
Gorby (plaintiff), Dennis's wife, brought suit against Schneider. At trial,
Edith called Carl Highlan as a witness. Highlan had been traveling in the
opposite direction on the road and had seen the accident. There was no
evidence that Highlan had ever driven a semi-tanker or pickup truck.
There was also no evidence that Highlan was familiar with either type of
vehicle's safety features or acceleration and stopping times. On cross-
examination, Schneider asked for Highlan's opinion on two issues: (1)
whether Welsch did everything he could to avoid the accident, and (2)
whether Dennis could have avoided the accident. The district court
excluded Schneider's questions and Highlan's responses. The jury found
in favor of Edith. Schneider appealed.
Issue
To be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, must lay-witness
opinion testimony be based on the witness's firsthand knowledge or
observation?
Holding and Reasoning (Pell, J.)
Yes. Under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 701, a lay witness may give
opinion testimony only if the testimony is rationally based on the
witness's perception. Thus, lay-witness opinion testimony must be based
on the witness's firsthand knowledge or observation in order to be
admissible under FRE 701. In this case, the district court did not abuse
its discretion by excluding Highlan's opinion testimony. This testimony
was not based on Highlan's firsthand knowledge or observation. Highlan
did not have firsthand knowledge of wh
