the jury’s verdict. First, we evaluate the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case. Dr. Garber’s opinion goes straight to the heart of the case against Merolillo, since causation was the issue most argued by both counsel. Likewise, the jury appeared to be focusing on the issue of causation as the most dispositive element of the criminal charge when it requested the read back of the expert’s testimony and questioned whether it was allowed to return a verdict of guilty to a lesser charge. Dr. Garber’s opinion was also likely given more weight than an ordinary witness as he was a doctor, the actual pathologist who conducted the autopsy, and an apparent peer of the testifying experts. See Jinro Am. Inc. v. Secure Invs., Inc., 266 F.3d 993, 1004 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The prosecu tion’s emphasis on Dr. Garber’s
holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury recognizing special circumstances exception holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony recognizing that expert statements are likely to carry special weight with the jury recognizing the existence of the special relationship