DOJ-OGR-00011143.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document692 Filed 11/22/21 Page5of17 The Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the first two opinions based on Dr. Hall’s training and experience as a psychiatrist and so are expert opinions subject to Rule 702. The latter two opinions are not expert opinions but instead testimony of fact that may or may not be admissible under other rules of evidence. The Court will address the expert opinions first. The Government argues that Dr. Hall’s testimony on psychological diagnoses is irrelevant and prejudicial under Rules 401 and 403. The Second Circuit has set out controlling case law to guide the Court’s decision: Evidence of a witness’s psychological history may be admissible when it goes to her credibility. In assessing the probative value of such evidence, the court should consider such factors as the nature of the psychological problem, the temporal recency or remoteness of the history, and whether the witness suffered from the problem at the time of the events to which she is to testify, so that it may have affected her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately. United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341, 347-48 (2d Cir. 1995) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Hamlett, No. 19-3069, 2021 WL 5105861, at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2021); United States v. Vitale, 459 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2006). Even if psychological history is probative according to these factors, the Court still retains discretion to exclude the evidence if it is substantially prejudicial under Rule 403. Sasso, 59 F.3d at 347-48. Dr. Hall’s report lists the following Sn DOJ-OGR-00011143