Opinion ID: 510022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevance and Unfair Prejudice

Text: 57 Defendants also object that even if Dr. Singer's views are admissible, they should have been excluded as irrelevant and inflammatory. As we find that Dr. Singer's testimony should not have been admitted, we do not need to address these other issues. If, however, she or another expert is properly qualified to present expert testimony at a new trial, we will rely on the discretion of the trial judge to ensure its relevance and maintain the appropriate balance between the probative value of any evidence offered on the subject of thought reform and its possible prejudicial effects. 58 We do not address defendants' argument that plaintiff's theory of thought reform would burden their First Amendment rights. As Kropinski's changed beliefs and defendants' advocacy of their beliefs are not at issue in this case, neither is the First Amendment.