Which of the following is NOT a reason for the admissibility of lay witness opinions?

The correct choice identifies the use of scientific knowledge as a reason that does not support the admissibility of lay witness opinions. In the context of evidence, a lay witness is someone who provides testimony based on personal observations or experiences rather than specialized training or expertise.

For an opinion to be admissible from a lay witness, it must be helpful to the trier of fact—this means the opinion should assist the judge or jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. Additionally, the opinion must be rationally based on the witness’s perception, meaning it should stem from what the witness has seen, heard, or experienced directly. Lastly, lay witness opinions must not require specialized knowledge; they are intended to draw on general experience rather than scientific or technical expertise.

In contrast, opinions based on scientific knowledge typically require expert witness testimony because they involve specialized understanding and analysis that goes beyond common knowledge. This distinction is essential in ensuring that only appropriately qualified individuals provide testimony that relies on scientific principles, thus maintaining the integrity and reliability of the evidence presented in court.