and vehicle identification, and provides technical services to law enforcement. He testified that his job includes examining vehicles and providing technical information to law enforcement agencies and officers. He testified that his exper tise involves knowing how to read a VIN number and determine certain information about the vehicle from that number. Glover objected to Agent Zimmer being qualified as an expert, but the district court overruled her objection. The court received Agent Zimmer as an expert, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, in the area of manufacture of vehicles and vehicle parts. The court then gave a cautionary instruction to the jury that it was the jury’s role to determine how much weight to give the testimony of any witness, and that the ju Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). The reasoning of those courts is applicable
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing expert to testify as to the place of manufacture of weapon since his testimony could have been useful to the jury to determine whether the weapon had traveled in interstate commerce and court gave a limiting instruction holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony to only one witness where additional witnesses would have provided the same testimony holding the admission of expert testimony that exceeded the bounds of rule 704 was prejudicial despite the fact that the court gave the jury a limiting instruction similar to the instruction in this case holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify