October Term 2023 · Docket 23-14

Can experts testify that a defendant fits a criminal profile?

The dispute centers on whether Rule 704(b) bars expert testimony that a defendant shares traits with a criminal class.

Official caption
Diaz v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Fisher argued the government does not defend the Ninth Circuit's specific rule.

    Mr. Guarnieri argued the rule's text limits its application to explicit mental state opinions.

    questions_and_answers

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). The rule restricts expert opinions on a defendant's mental state. The parties disagree on whether this ban covers general class-based testimony.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 19, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to reject the Ninth Circuit's narrow reading of Rule 704(b).

The government wants the Court to uphold the rule's plain text limitation.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the rule bars any testimony allowing a jury to infer the defendant's mental state.

The government argues the rule only applies when experts explicitly opine on the defendant's own mental state.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if experts could clarify their testimony after testifying.

Justice Alito asked where the side that brought the case draws the line on barred inferences.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary of expert testimony in criminal trials. It determines whether juries can hear general class-based opinions. The outcome shapes how experts present evidence about defendant behavior.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON