Opinion ID: 1730820
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Whether the state's expert testimony was irrelevant and incompetent; whether the opinions were too remote in time, and whether they were based on interviews done while Billiot was under the influence of anti-psychotic drugs administered without his consent?

Text: Billiot argues that the state's expert testimony should have been held to be inadmissible because the experts relied on incomplete and inaccurate facts and because they did not rely on methodologies generally accepted in the psychiatric community. Billiot relies on a four-part test enunciated in Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1110 (5th Cir.1991): (1) Whether the witness is qualified to express an expert opinion, Fed.R.Evid. 702; (2) Whether the facts upon which the expert relies are the same type as are relied upon by other experts in the field, Fed.R.Evid. 703; (3) Whether in reaching his conclusion, the expert used a well-founded methodology, Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.1923); and (4) Assuming that the expert's testimony has passed Rule 702 and 703, and the Frye test, whether under Fed.R.Evid. 403 the testimony's potential for unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value. Billiot essentially argues that the state's experts did not meet the requirements of steps two and three for admissibility. However, the state's experts testified under oath that they relied on the relevant Mississippi statute pertaining to competency for execution and the United States Supreme Court case Ford v. Wainwright in rendering their expert opinions. These were the same criteria relied on by the experts called to testify on behalf of the defense. Although Dr. Johnson clearly did more extensive research than the other experts who testified, all the experts agreed that one can be schizophrenic and still competent to be executed. Therefore, Dr. Guild's statement that, after hearing testimony in this hearing, he would reconsider his diagnosis that Billiot was not schizophrenic, does not change the bottom line  that the question of whether or not Billiot is competent under the statute and the Ford case was answered by the experts who rendered an opinion after interviewing Billiot. The expert testimony was admissible and it was not error for the trial judge to rely on it.