Opinion ID: 791199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusion of Dr. Burgess's Testimony — Nichols

Text: 44 Lastly, Nichols contends that the district court erred in excluding the testimony of his defense expert, Dr. Stanley Burgess. Nichols sought to introduce the testimony of Dr. Burgess, a professor in religious studies, concerning the religious beliefs held by members of Nichols's church. The district court ruled that Dr. Burgess's testimony was irrelevant. We review the exclusion of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Rushing, 388 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir.2004). 8 45 A district court enjoys broad discretion in its determination of relevancy and reliability of expert testimony. United States v. Robertson, 387 F.3d 702 (8th Cir.2004). Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it. Because of this risk, the judge in weighing possible prejudice against probative force under Rule 403 of the present rules exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (quotation omitted). 46 According to Nichols, the defense's purpose for attempting to introduce Dr. Burgess's testimony was to show the jury that Nichols was not simply professing certain religious beliefs in an attempt to win sympathy or confuse the jury. The case, however, was not about religious convictions in general or Nichols's specific religious beliefs; rather, the critical issues pertained to the elements of fraud and money laundering. The nature and sincerity of Nichols's religious beliefs was not before the court or necessary to Nichols's defense. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Dr. Burgess's testimony.