Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
52. What is the proper ruling for the court to make?
A defendant has been indicted for shooting a gun at a local official. She has raised an insanity defense. At trial, the defendant's attorney seeks to call a qualified psychiatrist as an expert witness. The psychiatrist would testify (1) that at the time of the shooting the defendant suffered from schizophrenia and heard voices commanding her to shoot the official, and (2) that because of these auditory hallucinations, the defendant was legally insane at the time of the shooting. The prosecutor objects to the proposed testimony.
This is a last question in category
« Go to questions from category Relevancy and Excluding Relevant EvidenceComments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. Under FRE 704(b), an expert in a criminal case may not state an opinion about whether a defendant was legally insane at the time of the alleged crime. Thus, the first part of the psychiatrist's proposed testimony is admissible, as it will be helpful to the jury, but the second part is inadmissible.
B is incorrect. FRE 704(b)'s prohibition on certain expert testimony pertaining to a defendant's mental state applies to both parties' experts in a criminal case.
D is incorrect. An expert may testify that a defendant suffered from schizophrenia but may not testify that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the alleged crime. The latter testimony is barred by FRE 704(b).