The following excerpt is from Barker v. Zenon, 937 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1991):
Barker contends that his trial attorney should have objected to the testimony of his juvenile parole officer under United States v. Calhoun, 544 F.2d 291 (6th Cir.1976). 1 In Calhoun, while the court did not reach the constitutional issue, it held that the trial judge had abused his discretion by admitting lay opinion testimony by the defendant's parole officer to identify the defendant in surveillance photos. The judges reasoned that such testimony should not be admitted unless the prosecution has initially demonstrated the necessity of using the parole officer rather than another witness.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.