Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cr-00392/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cr-00392-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicholas King Beyer
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NICHOLAS KING BEYER,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cr-00392-CRB-1 

ORDER EXCLUDING EXPERT 

TESTIMONY

Nicholas Beyer stands accused of making false statements and concealing material facts 

from the Federal Aviation Administration, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1) and (2). 

Indictment (dkt. 1). The charges arise from Beyer’s answers on Federal Aviation Administration 

Form 8500-8. Id. On two separate occasions, Beyer answered the question “Have you ever in 

your life been diagnosed with, had, or do you presently have . . . [m]ental disorders of any sort; 

depression, anxiety, etc.” in the negative. Id.; see also Trial Ex. 2; Trial Ex. 5. The Government 

alleges this was false, because Beyer had previously been diagnosed with major depressive 

disorder by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Mot. (dkt. 69) at 5. And on the same form, 

Beyer twice failed to disclose that he was receiving disability for major depressive disorder when 

explaining why he was receiving medical disability benefits from the VA. Indictment.

Prior to trial, the Government moved to exclude the testimony of two proposed expert 

witnesses, Dr. Cheryl-Grace Patty and Dr. Charles Dennison.1 See generally Mot. That motion is 

granted for the following reasons.

 

1

 Beyer was convicted on all counts after a bench trial on January 14, 2020. See Docket 104. 

The Court granted the Government’s motion to exclude Beyer’s experts prior to trial. This Order 

explains the reasoning underlying that decision.

Case 3:18-cr-00392-CRB Document 106 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

I. DR. CHERYL-GRACE PATTY

Dr. Patty would have testified that the VA over-diagnosed Beyer with major 

depressive disorder and that the VA often over-diagnosed veterans with disabilities. Mot. 

at 3–5. As an initial matter, it is far from clear that whether Beyer is or ever was depressed 

is relevant to the charges in this case. Form 8500-8 asked whether Beyer had ever been 

diagnosed with depression. Whether Beyer was actually depressed does not change the 

fact that he had received a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The accuracy of his 

diagnosis does not change the falsity of his answer. Similarly, whether Beyer was actually 

depressed does not change the fact that the VA’s diagnosis was a basis for his disability 

benefits.

Beyer argues that Dr. Patty’s testimony is nevertheless relevant, because “[i]f 

Mr. Beyer was aware he was misdiagnosed with major depressive disorder, and never in 

fact had that condition, then the jury—and should—acquit him in view of the 

government’s failure to prove mens rea.” Opp’n at 3. This theory requires the jury to 

accept that Beyer interpreted the question “[h]ave you ever in your life been diagnosed 

with . . . [m]ental disorders of any sort; depression, anxiety, etc.” to really be asking “have 

you ever in your life been correctly diagnosed with . . . [m]ental disorders of any sort; 

depression, anxiety, etc.” Reading the word “correctly” into the question’s plain language

is wholly unsupported by Form 8500-8’s plain language.

But even assuming that a reasonable fact-finder could have been persuaded that 

Beyer adopted this eye-raising interpretation of Form 8500-8’s medical history questions, 

the chain of inferences necessary to make Dr. Patty’s diagnosis relevant to Beyer’s mens 

rea is still far too attenuated to overcome the potential confusion and prejudice it would 

create. Beyer’s theory is that he did not have the requisite mens rea because he believed 

the form was really asking whether he had ever been correctly diagnosed with depression, 

and he knew his diagnosis was erroneous. Opp’n at 3. Dr. Patty’s testimony ostensibly 

supports this theory because she believes Beyer was not depressed. Mot. at 3–5. She 

reached this conclusion after Beyer made the false statements at issue in this case, and 

Case 3:18-cr-00392-CRB Document 106 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

based only on Beyer’s naval medical records and her own experience. Mot. at 4. Dr. 

Patty’s testimony is of limited usefulness in determining whether Beyer subjectively 

believed he was depressed despite his VA diagnosis, an issue which, as discussed above, 

may or may not be relevant at all.

On the other hand, this testimony poses a significant danger of confusion and 

prejudice. Testimony regarding the accuracy of Beyer’s depression diagnosis would 

distract the factfinder with an issue that is, at most, tangential to the case. (Remember that 

the accuracy of Beyer’s diagnosis is relevant only insofar as it supports his claim that he 

subjectively believed he was misdiagnosed, which is itself relevant only if one accepts that 

he also believed Form 8500-8 was asking whether he had been accurately diagnosed with a 

mental condition.) Dr. Patty’s testimony also threatens to prejudice the factfinder against 

the VA by impugning its diagnoses in general, even though the accuracy of the specific 

diagnosis in this case is itself of limited relevance. Because the risk of unfair prejudice 

and confusion substantially outweighs the limited probative value of Dr. Patty’s testimony, 

the Government’s motion to exclude is granted. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

II. DR. CHARLES DENNISON

Dr. Dennison would have testified “about the [Aviation Medical Examiner] 

examination process,” Mot. at 6–7, and specifically about “how AMEs address issues of 

mental health disclosures by airman applicants,” “any general flaws in how the FAA 

instructs AMEs to address mental health issues,” and how mental health conditions are 

evaluated and handled in the examination process, Opp’n at 3–4. Beyer argues that this 

evidence goes to the materiality of the alleged false statements and concealed facts, and 

rebuts the Government’s expert testimony. Id. at 4. He argues, for example, that “[t]he 

FAA’s failure to establish clear standards or require relevant training directly undermines 

the government’s own expert’s proposed testimony that mental health disclosures are 

important to public safety and material to the FAA’s activities and decision making 

processes.” Id.

But Beyer concedes that to show materiality, the Government only had to show that 

Case 3:18-cr-00392-CRB Document 106 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:18-cr-00392-CRB Document 106 Filed 01/15/20 Page 4 of 4