With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mr. Smith was not proffered as an expert but provided expert testimony, and that in any event Mr. Smith exceeded the bounds of permissible testimony by infringing upon the province of the jury. They also claim this error was prejudicial. We agree. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701, “If a witness is not testifying as an expert,” he may offer an opinion that is “(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.” Rule 702 governs expert testimony and allows for helpful testimony based on a witness’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Importantly 6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Even if Mr. Smith had properly been qualified

A: holding any error in admitting testimony of expert witness was harmless because it was cumulative of same testimony given by six other expert witnesses who testified at trial
B: holding that testimony about medicares structure reimbursement and audit processes and other medicare concepts was expert testimony because it relied upon an understanding of the workings of a complex and intricate regulatory scheme  acquired over years of experience  as well as the witnesses understanding of various terms
C: holding that expert testimony should be admitted if it advances the trier of facts understanding to any degree quotation omitted
D: holding that whether a defendant is insane because of the long and continued use of intoxicants is not within the ordinary understanding of jurors and that in the absence of expert testimony a defendant would not be entitled to an instruction based on drank
B.