of records from which the jury could draw their own conclusions. The government argues that only an expert, such as Agent Zimmer, has the ability to interpret VIN numbers to determine the place of manufacture of the vehicles. The government contends that, had Agent Zimmer only been permitted to present records, the jury would have been unable to interpret the VIN numbers to determine the place of manufacture of the victim’s vehicle. The government also notes that the cautionary instruction by the court reduced any possible prejudice to the defendants. Agent Zimmer’s testimony did not usurp the function of the jury; rather, his testimony was permissible as an expert opinion to help the jury determine a fact in issue. Cf. United States v. Monus, 128 F.3d 376, 386 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Other courts have held that the government
holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs as a matter of law holding an agent from the drug enforcement agency could testify regarding the street value of cocaine where the agent was testifying regarding matters within his personal knowledge and experience as a narcotics officer holding that failure of irs agent to follow irs electronic surveillance regulations before recording conversations between taxpayer and agent did not require suppression of tape recordings in prosecution of taxpayer accused of bribing irs agent since irs was not required by constitution to adopt its regulations governing electronic surveillance violation of agency regulations did not raise constitutional questions holding that the employer was not the insurers agent holding that expert testimony of irs agent regarding tax liability did not usurp the function of the jury as agent did not give her opinion about the guilt of the defendant