stated that, in its view, affidavits “are supposed to put in factual material, but they’re not suppose to in essence, make an additional legal argument.” Id. at 19. After encouraging the moving defendants to share the declarations with the plaintiffs and discuss whether they should be admitted, see id. at 26, the Court adjourned the conference until later that day. See id. at 30. At the reconvened conference, the plaintiffs informed the Court that they had reviewed the declaration by Professor Wolfram and believed it was “nothing more than an attempt to camouflage what is clearly an opinion as a matter of law on a legal issue by just using some facts as background for his conclusion.” 10/15/01 Tr. (5:35 p.m.) at 8. The Court r.), modified on other grounds, 856 F.2d 5 (2d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The rule prohibiting experts from providing
holding that experts statements that defendants violated securities law and drew directly upon the language of the statute were legal conclusions that went well beyond his province as an expert holding the experts opinion testimony lacked a proper foundation when there was no physical evidence of sexual abuse and the experts admitted that their conclusions were based solely on the childrens statements that they had been abused holding that even under an abuse of discretion standard the trial court must    make sufficient find ings of fact and conclusions of law to allow the reviewing court to determine whether a judgment and the legal conclusions that underlie it represent a correct application of the law holding that the district court did not err in imposing an obstruction of justice enhancement where defendants false statements went beyond merely denying his guilt holding that rules of evidence do not permit an expert to give opinion or state legal conclusions regarding a question of law