According to Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, what limits the opinion expression of lay witnesses?

Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that a lay witness’s testimony must be limited to opinions that are rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.

The correct answer focuses on the requirement that opinions expressed by lay witnesses must stem from their first-hand knowledge or observation. This means that the witness must have directly experienced or seen the events they are testifying about. This limit is essential as it ensures that the witness's opinions are grounded in actual experience, rather than speculation or conjecture.

The other options do not capture this critical aspect of Rule 701. For instance, expert review and approval pertains to the admissibility of expert testimony, which is distinctly different from the criteria governing lay witnesses. General knowledge about the case may inform a witness's perspective, but it does not meet the evidential requirements outlined in Rule 701. Lastly, educational qualifications relate more to expert witnesses who require a certain level of expertise to provide testimony, rather than lay witnesses whose opinions must derive strictly from personal knowledge and observations.