Opinion ID: 197384
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Admissibility of Dr. Fumero's Testimony

Text: 33 Appellants also challenge the district court's ruling that Dr. Fumero's testimony is inadmissible. On appellate review, [a] district court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony is entitled to great deference. United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126, 132 (1st Cir.1995). We will reverse the trial court's decision on this question only if (1) the district court based the decision on an incorrect legal standard, or (2) we have a 'definite and firm conviction that the court made a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached based on a weighing of the relevant factors.'  Id. (citations omitted). 34 Defendants' argument proceeds as follows. Dr. Fumero was a qualified witness within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as the court agreed. Tr. 8 at 1483. He proffered to the court that the symptoms of Robles' mental condition include verbosity; grandeza ([h]e has to feel important and the center of attention as part of his ... fragmented ego needs), Tr. 8 at 1497; and exaggeration. Because defendants faced criminal charges based largely on recorded conversations involving Robles, and because the government claimed that these conversations demonstrated the existence of a drug conspiracy, the weight placed on the taped conversations by the jury was of paramount importance. Indeed, the defendants' case was founded on the view that the recorded conversations were discussions of legitimate business dealings. If the jury could be convinced that Robles' testimony was unreliable because he had a medical condition that led him to exaggerate, it would be more likely to believe the defense theory that they were involved in legal business activity. 35 The district court ruled that Dr. Fumero would not be allowed to testify on the ground that the fact that a person may suffer a mental defect or problem does not render his testimony inadmissible. Tr. 8 at 1459. The court stated further that [y]ou cannot bring a witness and say, well, this man is not telling the truth or he can't tell the truth. Tr. 8 at 1465. The court appears to have understood Dr. Fumero's testimony to be related to the competency of Robles: What I suggest to you is that we give to the jury a stipulation that Julio Robles had been held not competent to stand trial at this time but that he is being evaluated further. Tr. 8 at 1466. 36 It is well established that a witness' mental state can be relevant to the issue of the witness' credibility. United States v. Butt, 955 F.2d 77, 82 (1st Cir.1992). The competency of a witness to testify is a determination to be made by the trial judge, but issues of credibility are for the trier of fact. See United States v. Carroll, 105 F.3d 740, 743 (1st Cir.1997); United States v. Hyson, 721 F.2d 856, 864 (1st Cir.1983). 37 The ability of parties to offer expert testimony on the question of credibility is not, however, unlimited. [A]n expert's opinion that another witness is lying or telling the truth is ordinarily inadmissible pursuant to Rule 702 because the opinion exceeds the scope of the expert's specialized knowledge and therefore merely informs the jury that it should reach a particular conclusion. Shay, 57 F.3d at 131. On the other hand, no constitutional provision, law, or rule requires the exclusion of expert testimony simply because it concerns a credibility question. Id. To be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a proposed expert witness must: (1) be qualified to testify as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, Fed.R.Evid. 702; (2) the testimony must concern scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, Fed.R.Evid. 702; and (3) the testimony must assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed.R.Evid. 702. Shay, 57 F.3d at 132. 38 In Shay, the defendant, Shay Jr., was convicted of conspiracy and aiding and abetting an attempt to blow up his father's car. Shay, 57 F.3d at 128. Shortly after the bombing, he told a police officer that he was sorry about it and wished he could turn back the hands of time. Id. The government argued that this statement was evidence of Shay Jr.'s guilt. As part of his defense, Shay Jr. sought to call Dr. Phillips, a psychiatrist, to testify that Shay Jr. suffered from a mental disorder known as pseudologa fantastica. The expert witness was to testify that this illness caused Shay Jr. to fabricate self-aggrandizing lies that would place him at the center of attention. Id. at 129-30. The district court excluded this testimony on the ground that the jury was capable of determining the reliability of Shay Jr.'s statements. 39 The Shay panel held that expert psychiatric testimony can be admitted in appropriate circumstances to establish a witness' character for truthfulness. Id. at 131. 40 The instant case is governed by Shay, and our analysis follows the one adopted there. 41 Neither party challenges Dr. Fumero's qualifications as an expert. The proffered testimony concerned the mental illness of Robles and its impact on his behavior--implying that it concerned scientific, technical or specialized knowledge. The remaining question is whether it would have assisted the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The question that a court must answer in determining whether a proposed expert's testimony will assist the trier of fact is whether the untrained layman would be qualified to determine intelligently and to the best degree, the particular issue without enlightenment from those having a special understanding of the subject matter involved. Id. at 132 (internal quotation marks omitted). Dr. Fumero's testimony would have discussed Robles' mental illness. Dr. Fumero would have testified that Robles, as a result of his illness, was prone to exaggeration. 42 Moreover, this case has a unique dimension. Because Robles was incompetent to testify, the jury did not have the usual chance to evaluate his demeanor. Yet, the tapes containing his statements were introduced, and they were damaging to the defense. In light of the fact that the government's case was heavily dependent on Robles' taped conversations, we believe that, in these unusual circumstance, the testimony that he had a mental illness that led to verbosity, grandeza, and exaggeration was highly relevant and that an untrained layman would not be qualified to determine intelligently, and to the best degree the weight to place on Robles's recorded statements without enlightenment from Dr. Fumero. 43 The government argues that Dr. Fumero's testimony should be disallowed because the taped conversations featured current actions which were largely corroborated. To the extent that Robles did suffer from the mental illness at issue, however, Dr. Fumero's testimony could be relevant to the credibility of current statements. The defense theory is that Robles exaggerated his situation in statements that he made--a claim for which Dr. Fumero's testimony is clearly relevant. That the statements were, in the view of the government, accurate, is something for the jury to consider in its deliberations. It goes to the weight to be given to the evidence and is not a reason to exclude Dr. Fumero's testimony. 44 We conclude, therefore, that the district court erred in refusing to allow Dr. Fumero to testify. 2