and the jury will weigh the lay opinion testimony in light of any countervailing evidence. Benton Harbor’s counsel scrutinized Jones’s training and experience on cross-examination and read excerpts to the jury which highlighted those issues. Jones’s lack of formal training should not prevent the admission of his opinion. See United States v. Myers, 972 F.2d 1566, 1577 (11th Cir.1992) (admitting lay opinion testimony that a stun gun caused burn marks based on the witness’s perception of the burned skin and 19 years of police experience; holding that the opinion’s lack of a technical/medical basis could be exposed on cross-examination and affected the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1813, 123 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993); Joy Mfg., 697 F.2d at 112 (<HOLDING>). Based upon Jones’s experience, the district
holding statements of product superiority and that product was industry approved were puffery holding that it was permissible for the state to test the credibility of appellants trial testimony by crossexamination holding that inability to state precisely why product was inoperable did not prevent lay testimony that product was inoperable but rather was proper material for effective crossexamination holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need holding that the shape of a product was not an advertising idea because there was no allegation in the complaint that the design itself was a trademark or was intended to distinguish the product from others that might enter the market citation omitted