Opinion ID: 457843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Expert's Testimony Concerning Mental State

Text: 28 Marvin Hodges testified on behalf of the defense that the materials and representations used by Chavis' companies were not misleading or unethical. Following Mr. Hodges' testimony, Dr. Birdwell, an advertising expert, testified on behalf of the government that the materials were misleading. At one point, on redirect examination, a hypothetical question about defendants' good faith was posed to Dr. Birdwell in which he was asked to assume that an individual had made false representations and had been put on notice that customers were dissatisfied, the authorities expressed their concern about the matter, yet the individual continued to make the same representations. Dr. Birdwell responded [I]t would seem to me that there wasn't any good faith. It was obviously an intended misrepresentation. The defendants contend that this testimony was outside Dr. Birdwell's area of expertise, and therefore inadmissible under Fed.R. of Evid. 702. 29 We agree that in the ordinary circumstance testimony concerning a defendant's state of mind or intent must be avoided. United States v. Ruppel, 666 F.2d 261, 270 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1107, 102 S.Ct. 3487, 73 L.Ed.2d 1369 (1982); United States v. Webb, 625 F.2d 709, 711 (5th Cir.1980). In this case, however, the government's questioning was preceded by the following questions by Chavis' counsel: 30 Q. I am asking you, can you acknowledge that that could happen, that a person in good faith could make a representation that is false? 31