Possibly "Argumentative" Testimony from Officer Did Not Meet Plain Error Standard
U.S. v. Figueroa-Cruz, 2012 WL 5207479 (10/23/12) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - The 10th indicates an officer's testimony regarding the incriminating import of things he observed during a traffic stop (e.g. nervousness, etc.)"should have been reserved for the prosecutor." That part of the testimony was more like argument. But any error did not meet the prejudice prong of the plain error standard because the prosecutor argued the same points in closing and most or all of the officer's opinions would have been obvious to the jurors.