Opinion ID: 710265
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Exclusion of Testimony of Rozier's Psychopathic Tendencies.

Text: 81 Appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by not permitting Dr. Barry Crown to testify that Rozier was a psychopath who had no conception of the truth. A district court has wide discretion in its determination to admit and exclude evidence, and this is particularly true in the case of expert testimony. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 108, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2903, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974). Absent unusual circumstances, expert medical testimony concerning the truthfulness or credibility of a witness is inadmissible. See United States v. Wertis, 505 F.2d 683, 685 (5th Cir.1974) (per curiam), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1045, 95 S.Ct. 2662, 45 L.Ed.2d 697 (1975). Expert medical testimony concerning the truthfulness or credibility of a witness is generally inadmissible because it invades the jury's province to make credibility determinations. In any event, in the present case, given the extensive cross-examination of Rozier, appellants suffered no prejudice even if we assume the district court's ruling was incorrect. 82