supra, at 144, 118 S.Ct. 512 (district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling inadmissible expert testimony based on “seemingly far-removed” animal studies where party failed to explain why the extrapolation was scientifically proper); Domingo v. T.K., 289 F.3d 600, 606-607 (9th Cir.2002) (finding that district court’s exclusion of expert’s causation testimony was not an abuse of discretion, in part because expert did not provide “analytical support” for his extrapolation of animal study results to humans and also because there was no evidence that the expert had applied a valid scientific method in developing his theory and there were unexplained gaps between the expert’s premises and his conclusion); Turpin v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 959 F.2d 1349, 1360 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F.Supp.
holding that defendant did not preserve state constitutional challenge to experts testimony at punishment hearing because defendant relied exclusively on federal cases in arguing for exclusion of experts testimony holding that experts testimony was inadmissible where the record failed to make clear why the effects of bendectin in rats and rabbits could be extrapolated to humans holding presumption of strategy not rebutted when record was silent as to why appellants trial counsel failed to object to the states persistent attempts to elicit inadmissible hearsay holding that even if an experts testimony arguably embraced the ultimate issue such testimony is permissible as long as the experts testimony assists rather than supplants the jurys judgment holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable