a rug to wrinkle)). 19 . TRW Title Ins. Co. v. Sec. Union Title Ins. Co., 887 F.Supp. 1029, 1031 (N.D.Ill.1995) (quoting United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 604 (7th Cir.1991) and finding that expert "opinion is based solely on deposition transcripts and exhibits," court excluded expert opinion "because it [did] not rely on any expertise but [was] comprised of inferences from the record that [the expert was] no more qualified than the jury to draw"); see also City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 565 (11th Cir.1998) (noting under facts of case that "the trier of fact is entirely capable of determining whether or not to draw such conclusions without any technical assistance from ... experts"); Jetcraft Corp. v. Flight Safety Int'l, 16 F.3d 362, 366 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 20 . Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. at
holding that the district court properly prohibited plaintiffs expert from doing what the jury could do just as well on its own ie infer the presence or absence of negligence from the circumstantial evidence adduced at trial recognizing that while it is more difficult to show actual fear without a defendants testimony a jury can infer intent from the circumstantial evidence recognizing that jury may infer from the evidence that defendants money came from drug sales holding that to obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence the defendant must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the defendant recognizing that a jury is permitted to infer an intent to deceive from circumstantial evidence