At trial, several officers were asked a hypothetical question about whether certain force would be appropriate in circumstances such as those that the testimony in this case described. This was improper lay “opinion” testimony and would only be permissible as expert opinion.United States v. Van Eyl, 468 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 2006)The prosecutor’s closing argument advanced a theory of guilt that had previously been rejected by the trial court. The trial court acted within its discretion in granting a new trial.

Characterizing the jurors as victims was akin to the prohibited “golden rule” argument.United States v. Van Eyl, 468 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 2006)The prosecutor’s closing argument advanced a theory of guilt that had previously been rejected by the trial court. The trial court acted within its discretion in granting a new trial.