rule that an expert cannot offer an opinion as to a criminal defendant’s guilt or innocence: ‘An opinion that a defendant’s [confession] is unreliable cannot be logically disconnected from the implicit opinion that the defendant . is, in fact, not guilty.’ Jacques, supra at 285-86 (emphasis in original). See also Brown v. Horell, 644 F.3d 969, 978, 982-83 (9th Cir.2011) (in denying a petition for habeas corpus, upholding the exclusion of expert testimony as to interrogation methods that tend to produce false confessions, where the trial court had concluded that the defendant’s explanation for his allegedly false confession, to wit, a threat of violence against another person, was within the jury’s experience); State v. Free, 351 N.J.Super. 203, 798 A.2d 83, 95-96 (App.Div. 2002) (<HOLDING>). ti “After careful review of relevant opinions
holding  that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony as to false confessions and interrogation techniques because inter alia it was not scientifically reliable it was of no assistance to the jury and the jury would recognize that coercive methods have the potential for causing a false confession holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding that the issue was more appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care