See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101 (providing that Georgia’s new Evidence Code applies “to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after” January 1,2013). That said, the standard under the former Evidence Code for permitting an expert to offer opinion testimony in a criminal proceeding was retained in Georgia’s new Evidence Code at OCGA § 24-7-707, which provides that “[i]n criminal proceedings, the opinions of experts on any question of science, skill, trade, or like questions shall always be ad 12 WL 280702, at *4-5 (I) (N.D. Ill. 2012) (denying motion in limine when witness possessed specialized knowledge so as to qualify as an expert in commercial sexual exploitation); United States v. Williams, Crim. No. 05-CR-443, 2007 WL 3118306, at *2-3 (II) (B) (M.D. Pa. 2007) (<HOLDING>). 14 See United States v. Anderson, 851 F2d
holding that witness possessed specialized knowledge so as to qualify as an expert in commercial sexual exploitation of adults and juveniles holding that to qualify for a special factor increase the attorney must have some distinctive knowledge or specialized skill needful for the litigation in question   holding flight attendant could testify as to observation that many people hit their heads on the overhead compartment but could not give an expert opinion as to the need for a warning because the witness had no specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact the court never indicated that such specialized knowledge should be in the area of warnings holding that to qualify as a professional service the task must arise out of acts particular to the individuals specialized vocation holding that plaintiffs conduct was sufficient to qualify as a protected activity when she refused to testify as a favorable witness for her employer in a sexual harassment claim