Opinion ID: 793667
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Examination of Pharmacologist

Text: 49 Reep called a professor of pharmacology, Dr. William Cooke, as an expert regarding the drugs Government witness Roberson was taking and their potential effect. After listing the psychoactive drugs Roberson was taking, Dr. Cooke testified that taking the drugs in therapeutic dosages could result in confusion, decreased reasoning capacity, and short-term memory loss. After cross-examination by the Government, the district court engaged in the following colloquy with Dr. Cooke: 50 THE COURT: ... [A]re these compounds used to treat people suffering from bipolar disease? 51 THE WITNESS: They can be used for that purpose, yes. 52 THE COURT: And when these particular drugs are used, psychiatrists are trained to prescribe these drugs in the appropriate dosage; is that correct? 53 THE WITNESS: Yes. From experience, that's right. 54 THE COURT: And the psychiatrist not only prescribed these drugs, but they are required to monitor these drugs to be sure that they are having the effect that they prescribed them for in the first place; is that correct? 55 THE WITNESS: That would be the ideal circumstance, yes. 56 J.A. 2190. On redirect, Reep's counsel established that monitoring of the patient does not necessarily mean that the patient will not suffer the cognitive effects described in Dr. Cooke's direct testimony. 57 Reep complains that the questioning by the district court blunted Dr. Cooke's testimony by making the jury think that monitoring would avoid any adverse effects on Roberson's memory. To the extent this is true, however, Reep's counsel established on redirect that memory loss could occur even with physician monitoring. Additionally, Roberson's difficulties with his memory were evident from his testimony for the Government, and were further illuminated by counsel's extensive cross-examination.