DOJ-OGR-00008104.pdf

--- Page 1 --- The extracted text is: **Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE** **Document 508** **Filed 11/24/21** **Page 19 of 25** they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. Fed. R. Evid. 703. There is no dispute that experts in Dr. Hall's field reasonably rely on the kinds of facts and data he relied on in forming his opinions. These facts and data, moreover, are otherwise admissible. Dr. Hall relied primarily on an interview with statements to Dr. Hall are not inadmissible hearsay. admissible because they are statements made for medical diagnosis under Rule 803(4) and because they are statements of then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition under Rule 803(3). Offered not for their truth, the statements are admissible for their effect on Dr. Hall in forming his opinions. They are also admissible as prior inconsistent statements under Rule 613. Dr. Hall also relied on are admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(A). The probative value of the bases of Dr. Hall's opinions substantially outweighs any prejudice. There is nothing unfair about telling the jury of the various admissions has made and the various inconsistencies in her allegations. Of course, will be testifying, so the government can examine her about all these issues as well. And the evidence is not being offered to shame her. See Robinson, 583 F.3d at 1275 ("This is not a case in which a party attempts to unfairly malign a witness for distant and relatively minor mental health issues."). It is being offered so the jury can have a complete picture of her credibility, and any potential prejudice can be cured by a limiting instruction.