No Abuse of Discretion to Exclude Defendant's Expert Testimony on False Confessions
United States v. Benally, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 4138468 (10th Cir. 2008).
The COA finds district court did not abuse its discretion under Fed. Crim. Evid. R. 702 in not admitting testimony of defense expert on why individuals might falsely confess. Although the expert would not have testified to whether D falsely confessed, the testimony would nevertheless have encroached upon the jury function of determining credibility of the witnesses. Under 403, the district court could conclude that relevancy was low (the expert did not interview the D) and prejudice and confusion was high. The COA acknowledges that such testimony is not categorically inadmissible, but points out that in other cases in which such testimony was admitted it was linked to the Defendant’s mental disorder of some kind.
District court did not commit plain error in failing to pronounce under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that the sentence was sufficient but no greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of the Act.
The COA finds district court did not abuse its discretion under Fed. Crim. Evid. R. 702 in not admitting testimony of defense expert on why individuals might falsely confess. Although the expert would not have testified to whether D falsely confessed, the testimony would nevertheless have encroached upon the jury function of determining credibility of the witnesses. Under 403, the district court could conclude that relevancy was low (the expert did not interview the D) and prejudice and confusion was high. The COA acknowledges that such testimony is not categorically inadmissible, but points out that in other cases in which such testimony was admitted it was linked to the Defendant’s mental disorder of some kind.
District court did not commit plain error in failing to pronounce under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that the sentence was sufficient but no greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of the Act.
posted by Anonymous at 10:34 AM
<< Home