I would object to the witness testifying as an expert on two grounds. First, the witness does not practice in any field of science or other specialized knowledge.
Any one can see visions. Second, there is no foundation that her metaphysical analytical methods are scientifically reliable as required by Daubert. I would not
object that she lacks expert qualifications, since experience in a field is enough to establish qualifications.
I would respond that Johnson has sufficient qualifications through training an experience as an expert in narcotics trafficking; that this is a field of "other
specialized knowledge" outside the common experience of most jurors. The opinion is rationally based on his expertise and will be helpful to the jury in
underdstanding the significance of seemingly ordinary items found in the defendant's residence.