1308

I would object as follows:

a) I object to testimony about whether Sophie is prone to fantasizing as inadmissible character evidence about her general tendencies.
b) I object to testimony about whether she was influenced by her mother for lack of foundation that she has enough data upon which to base such an opinion or that such an opinion can be reliably made.
c) I object to her opinion about the child’s truthfulness for lack of foundation that such an opinion can be made reliably or is based on sufficient data, and that it is not an issue upon which expert testimony is permitted because determining the credibility of witnesses is central to the jury’s function in every case so is clearly within common experience and requires no specialized knowledge.

This is a very common issue in cases with child witnesses and victims, and courts are divided on whether some or all of this evidence is admissible. A few states, like Indiana, have a specific rule addressing it. Many would admit the evidence only in rebuttal of cross-examination suggesting the child is lying or was influenced. All would exclude the opinion that the child is in fact telling the truth.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 1308

Problem 13D involves a defense expert who will testify to the existence of a mental condition called "Trump rage syndrom," that the defendant suffered from it, and that it produced a mental defect in the defendant that prevented her from distinguishing right from wrong when confronted by a member of a racial minority.

1) As to the testimony about the existence of Trump rage syndrome, what objection could the prosecution make?

2) As to the testimony about its effect on the defendant, what objection could the prosecution make?

Write out your answers and email them to me at tanford@indiana.edu with the word "experts" in the subject line, and I will send you what I think are the best answers.

Continue to the next page.