Opinion ID: 788171
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Dr. Murphy's Testimony

Text: 18 We review a district court's ruling to exclude expert testimony for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 772 F.2d 1339, 1344 (7th Cir.1985). 19 Fuller requested permission to have Dr. Murphy testify regarding his psychological condition and history. Fuller claims that Dr. Murphy would have testified that he made the threat because of his desire to stay in prison and had no intention of carrying out the threat. Dr. Murphy would then opine that the February 2002 letter was not a true threat in violation of § 871. In light of the objective standard laid out above, Fuller's subjective intent to carry out the threat is not relevant to the question of whether the letter constituted a true threat. The jury's opinion as to whether a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted as a serious expression of intention to kill the President is the only opinion that matters. 20 Burdening the jury with testimony about why Fuller might have sent the letter, when such information is not relevant to the question of legal guilt, would merely have been confusing to the jury. The testimony was properly excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Lack of subjective intent is not a defense to § 871, so prohibiting Dr. Murphy from testifying did not deprive Fuller of any constitutional right to present his defense and was well within the court's discretion.