United States v. Angelina Didomenico

WARD, District Judges, and Circuit Judge.* McLAUGHLIN, Judge: Circuit appeals Angelina DiDomenico Defendant Dis- the United States judgment from a District Connecticut trict Court Cabranes, convicting (José Judge), A. Chief trial, her, count of wire of one after a fraud, of 18 U.S.C. in violation § one count of interstate (Supp.1992), and property, in viola- of stolen transportation (Supp.1992). On tion of U.S.C. § contends that dis- appeal, DiDomenico refused to admit erred it trict court when testimony relating to her expert psychiatric property knowledge of certain whether judg- disagree and affirm We stolen. ment.

BACKGROUND $5,000 computer than worth More professor’s equipment was stolen University. Thomas Par- Yale office at boyfriend, sons, live-in ac- DiDomenico’s * York, designation. Ward, sitting by United States Dis- Robert Honorable J. Judge District of New for the Southern trict motion, hearing At a on the DiDomeni- shortly after equipment quired explicitly acknowledged counsel co’s that he had theft, DiDomenico and he told testify concerning Grove would equipment he wanted computer some insanity capacity or lack defense. Nor DiDomenico, suggestion, Parsons’ at sell. would he that DiDomenico had an Ex- Computer the Boston telephoned then organic injury. objective, identifiable brain brokerage firm in Mas- computer change, a Rather, Dr. Grove’s would ad- stolen sachusetts, she listed the where implications psychological dress the of Di- During phone that for sale. equipment childhood, relationship Domenico’s her (and subsequent on several conversation parents, boy- her her idealization of her Ex- occasions) falsely told the DiDomenico Parsons, friend, attempted and her sister’s equipment be- employees that change’s All this was said to be relevant suicide. brother, she Peter. When longed to her it would assist the to deter- because Exchange for shipped equipment during DiDomenico’s state of mind mine her brother’s continued to use sale she period. time the relevant Counsel denied name as the sender. on the ulti- Grove would prospective a Exchange When of whether DiDomenico knew mate issue they discov- equipment, buyer received computer equipment that the was stolen. had no equipment that some ered Judge granted govern- Cabranes Exchange’s sales The numbers. serial motion,-ruling pertinent part: ment’s telephoned DiDomenico manager then personality that certain traits The fact fact, whereupon she her with this confront identified, categorized conduct or bought equipment that she had claimed by psychiatric pro characterized or who, turn, pur- had from a Jack Scott by, example, inclusion fession computer Computerland, it from chased Diagnostic and Manual of Statistical retailer. equipment (3rd 1980) Edition Mental Disorders (“DSM-III”) promulgated by Ameri Exchange informed President of the Association, not nec Psychiatric can does equipment had come her that conduct a essarily make traits or replied she was a DiDomenico Yale. disease” or “mental disorder” “mental (untrue) on a at Yale graduate student the defense of that can be the basis of (untrue) expressed the scholarship and she [see, v. Tor e.g., United States insanity, might affect her this incident fear (D.Conn.1983), niero, F.Supp. Throughout phone these conversa- status. (2d 735 F.2d 725 grounds, on other aff'd tions, her never mentioned DiDomenico Cir.1984), 469 U.S. name, spoke to boyfriend’s and he never (1985)], L.Ed.2d 782 Exchange. After these con- anyone at the way in the defen much less be used .to versations, referred the mat- Exchange suggests here. dant F.B.I. ter to the indicted on one count of DiDomenico was sug presented here The circumstances interstate fraud and one count of wire testimony would be even gest that this property. Before transportation of stolen problematical than that offered more trial, that she would DiDomenico indicated do not in Torniero. We the defendant Grove, M.D., as psychiatrist, C. Scott call or objectively here an ascertainable testify that she had a expert witness to ganic injury, brain [United (2d McBride, “dependent personality disorder with nar- Cir. defen features;” dependent 1986) principal case on which ], and that a cissistic disease, defect, dant relies. a “mental or personality is designation appears injury,

condition” claims no Defendant here Diagnostic insanity, Manual of incom- in the Statistical not claim and does Ill, (“DSM- Disorders, inability appreciate petence Vol. Revised Mental or other proceedings. The III”). by filing these government responded the nature- of her as- show testimony. proffered would in limine to exclude the a motion for me nobody had ever done that And susceptibility to vulnerability and serted special, he feel He made me before. Expert boyfriend. her duped by being like I made me feel mattered. commonplace relatively This inappropriate. soured, simply relationship experience after the Even verbally “the her surely began one of to abuse disorder Parsons so-called bring her- DiDomenicocould physically, syndromes attitudes host of that: testified it off. She self to break living;” “opinion daily part life. my validate I needed him to ... con exculpation or such matters] [on telling was, the one that was He he was beyond boundaries [goes] demnation living, worthy having, of I me if was knowledge.” State of current [United s primary He was the if I wasn’t. Cir. Bright, 517 was, like, my life. my life. He source 1975)]. that the effect The also heard about shortly be- proceeded and trial then The infancy had on in his losing a brother her case, DiDo- rested its government fore the Parsons, relationship with DiDomenico’s for reconsideration menico moved felt guilt DiDomenico enormous and the testimony, excluding disputed ruling attempt. younger sister’s suicide over her report from a written producing time Judge Ca- government objection, Over Judge responded to report Dr. Grove. The to call Lisa Va- allowed DiDomenico branes the DSM-III’s that conclusion Cabranes’s lentovish, University graduate and a Yale personality dependent recognition of alderwoman, also had a who New Haven did not significant and disorder was relationship Parsons. Valen- with romantic disease or it a mental necessarily make Parsons met Tom testified that she tovish law. Dr. of criminal for purposes disorder 1989, six months after some June distinguishes DSM-III that Grove stated case, him in this and found at issue events traits, are uni- personality clean-cut, between and sensitive. intelligent, to be disorders, which versal, stories personality Moreover, Parsons’ she believed gradu- engineering condition not, DiDomenico’s was a U.C.L.A. and that that he and some ate, Jaguar that he owned a that report The concluded awas disorder. Parsons Only after computer equipment. recognize ... evidence capacity “her stealing Jaguar, did for was arrested equipment had been computer [that a criminal that he had Valentovish discover seriously impaired have been would stolen] equipment was record, computer that the disorder result of mental as the direct stolen, he had not com- and that probably re- Judge Cabranes above.” described acquired had his high school but pleted unpersuaded and excluded mained self-study knowledge of science from testimony. prison. testi- the stand. She took DiDomenico jail, Parsons was released After equipment did not know that she fied dating again. him She began Valentovish Ex- stolen, she called the either when was upon her preyed that Parsons testified when she equipment, change to list her that the guilt convinced sense on at there. She shipped it went later to resume was reluctant only reason she childhood,her lonely length her some his criminal record her fear that dating was uncaring par- relationship her painful political her career. hurt would boy- her ents, relationship with and her guilty on jury found DiDomenico The that, at friend, testified Tom Parsons. She Judge Ca- the indictment. counts of both first: downwardly from the Sen- departed branes consider- perfect. He was was imposed a sentence tencing [Parsons] Guidelines me, he’d ate, kind, open the door he’d the condition years’ probation, with of five comfortable, if I health that I was make sure DiDomenico obtain by necessary just He deemed give counseling me his coat. was cold he’d Probation Office. United everything right. did expert testimony decision to receive DISCUSSION under a simply tossed off to was DiDomenico’s appeal only issue message to philosophy”, in’ it all 'let “[o]ur ex- improperly court district that the claim take colleagues: it is time to trial our able testimony Dr. Grove’s cluded trials.”). in federal testimony hold ability to impaired allegedly her relating to the district court was conclude that We equipment computer know in ex bounds of discretion within well testimony contends She stolen. testimony because the cluding Dr. Grove’s basis presented would helpfulness cri meet the did manipulated that she defense her 702, see United States terion knowledge of she lacked Parsons Cir.1987) 531, Esch, activity. Parsons’ criminal to tes (court psychologist to allow refused may admit A district personality”), “dependent had a tify that defendant knowledge “will his if qualified aof 485 U.S. t. cer to understand trier fact assist the de and cert. 99 L.Ed.2d fact issue.” determine evidence or nied, 485 U.S. 1991); (rev. see ed. Fed.R.Evid. L.Ed.2d 1289, 1304 Ruggiero, (1) Helpfulness. — U.S. -, 112 Cir.), cert. Di psychiatric that of a consisted has There L.Ed.2d 324 116 per dependent from a suffered Domenico judicial flow in and ebb palpable a been Dr. parsing After sonality disorder. testimony, com expert toward attitudes that testimony, we find proffered Grove’s Co., F.2d 596 Elevator Knight v. Otis pare conclude prudently could Judge Cabranes Cir.1979) (noting “the liberal (3d 84, 87 complicate only testimony would testimony which expert permitting of policy ” task. jury’s the An jury) with aid’ the ‘probably will that the district remembered R.R., It should be 882 North Commuter v. Metro drews (from testimony DiDo- lay admit did Cir.1989) should court (2d (expert 705, 708 F.2d Valentovish) concerning both lay matters menieo testify “to permitted not be time at the state emotional understanding DiDomenico’s of capable jury is a which per- Svengalian crime and Parsons’ the help”). of expert’s the deciding without testimony that jury heard sonality. The tide one recurrent Yet, been there has Dr. ground the entire of virtually covered through the admissibil coursing cases: evi- testimony. This sort of left Grove’s generally best is ity of such and, as hard to assimilate was dence judges. trial observed, a it addressed Judge Cabranes one, cases, like this Particularly in close experience within subject matter judge left to the trial be should the decision St., York v. 31-33 States jury. See United trial pulse of the finger on has his who Cir.1991)(“This was a (2d 139, 141 F.2d jury throughout has lived jury needed for which question simple vantage point a much better He has case. help.”). no to decide whether court appellate an than however, Dr. argues, or, DiDomenico testimony will assist a attached have testimony would just be Grove’s will gridiron, parlance dis- personality “dependent label reason, his clinical the call For this on. piling state, and distin- emotional we, if to her reversed, order” not because be he will “personality a mere this guished admitted have judges would as trial we sat psy- concerning the This con can trait.” only when we testimony, but disorder, Di- her implications chological tes exclude such the decision clude that contends, have assisted would Domenico “manifestly United erroneous.” timony is evidence, and understanding (2d 90, 96 Cir. Cruz, F.2d v. States requi- had the determining whether she Air Am. v. World 1986); Eymard Pan cf. cer- Testimony regarding Cir.1986) knowledge. site 1230, 1234 F.2d ways, 795 been has defects mental diseases tain it evident the record makes (“[WJhere (Nov. 16, 1992); filed, No. 92-6588 appropriate under admitted Schatzle, 901 F.2d Freeman, v. 357 accord States cases. See United (2d Cir.1990) (“Although Fed Cir.1966) (insanity); (2d 606, 622 F.2d all do not bar eral Rules of Evidence (organic brain at 50 McBride, issue, ultimate testimony concerning an see however, held, that a injury). We may court ex Fed.R.Evid. district evi may exclude district court testimony under Fed clude ultimate issue personality “passive-dependent dence of it Evidence 702 when eral Rule of of knowl lack to show offered disorder” Rule 403 when helpful jury, or under was stolen. property certain edge that may unduly prejudicial.”); United it 585- Bright, United McBride, 786 F.2d 1975). (2d Cir. Cir.1986) (“[A] exclude district escape Bright attempts to DiDomenico merely offers did the defendant that there asserting capacity opinion defendant’s suffering from mental to be not claim required mental state to com to form the here Grove whereas defect, disease or charged, suggest without mit the offense did. that DiDomenico testified would or presence a mental disease ing the argument is that difficulty with ”). ... defect was Bright at issue condition the mental properly also disorder” personality “dependent the same 704(b). The excluded under Fed.R.Evid. DiDomeni- alleges here. that DiDomenico expert testimony con recognizes rule why the disorder in explain co cannot poses state cerning a defendant’s defect, disease not a mental Bright danger intruding uniquely heightened con- the identical case in DiDomenico’s but See, e.g., jury’s function. Therefore, the im- find that we dition is. 787, (8th 961 F.2d 789 Blumberg, v. States was neither clinical label of a primatur Cir.1992)(the experts tell rule from forbids make jury for the to helpful necessary nor finding should be on ing jury the what its state of of DiDomenico’s an assessment case); in the United the ultimate issue Judge appro- Accordingly, Cabranes mind. 445, (7th Foster, F.2d 454 v. States 939 testimony of Dr. the excluded priately Cir.1991) “merely assisted the (testimony Grove. coming to a conclusion as to jury in [defen There is anoth issue. Ultimate state; did not make mental it dant’s] in this case that evidentiary complication er them”); for United States v. conclusion other land in most of the present is not 492, (9th Cir.1988) Brodie, 858 F.2d 496 Although Fed.R.Evid. mark decisions. expert testimony (affirming exclusion of rule the common law 704(a) abrogates admitted, which, impermissi- if would have give opinion to expert witness an allows to bly opinion an as defendants’ stated an ultimate issue in embracing testimony willfulness, which is an state ele mental 1304, F.2d at case, Ruggiero, 928 the see charged); ment of the crime 704(b) exception: Rule 156, (5th salient Newman, there is one 165 Cir. v. 849 F.2d expressing from “an prohibits 1988) (“The opin expert may not offer an to the de as whether inference opinion or issues of whether the ion on the ultimate not have mental or did fendant did induced to commit defendant was fact constituting an element predisposition.”); condition state or the crime or lacked Unit Dunn, 761, of a defense there charged or F.2d 762 the crime v. 846 ed States 704(b) (rev. 1991). ed. (D.C.Cir.1988)(“It only as to last step to.” Fed.R.Evid. “ex expert from process even an inferential conclusion as disables This —a or infer mental state— conclusion defendant’s actual stating the final to the pressly 704(b) expert to actual mental that Rule commands ence as to a defendant’s Alvarez, silent.”); a crime. United United v. 837 time of States state” at the (10th 1024, (11th Cir.) 849, (“expert cannot Richard, F.2d 1031 854 States — U.S. -, as to expressly 113 state a mental denied, S.Ct. conclusion” Cir.), cert. 1026, state), 486 U.S. (1992), petition 248, 121 L.Ed.2d ing Brown, 397, (1988); United see also 100 L.Ed.2d Dennison, Cir.1985) J.), (Friendly, cert. de Cir.1991) (applying nied, rule to 475 U.S. 106 S.Ct. 564-65 testimony), (1986)). cert. de it is L.Ed.2d 339 Because clear — -, nied, that Dr. Grove’s helped L.Ed.2d 789 the jury would have to understand it, evidence before accordance with 704(b) prohib Rule does not Clearly, 702, Fed.R.Evid., crossing Rule without to gives rise expert testimony that it all evidentiary territory prohibited line into the concerning mental a defendant’s inference 704(b), Fed.R.Evid., I am Rule Richard, 969 F.2d at 854-55 state. See view that the district court’s decision _ prevent (“The rule does not preclude Grove's was mani opinions from testifying to facts festly preclu erroneous. Inasmuch as infer the could conclude or jury expert testimony sion of the harm state.”). requisite had the defendant error, I less would reverse DiDomenico’s rule, however, language plain conviction remand a new trial. expressly expert cannot means that inference,’ must leave the but ‘state 702—Assisting A. Trier Rule Fact inference, obvious, for the however Alvarez, F.2d at 1031. draw. See In explaining preclude his decision to proclaims that she did DiDomenico While testifying, Judge Grove from Cabranes in- offer Dr. Grove dicated that: knew of whether she ultimate issue proffered testimony would show [t]he stolen, this is se computer equipment was vulnerability asserted [defendant’s] camouflage. read Dr. Grove’s mantic We being duped by boy- her susceptibility to stating bottom- proffered Expert testimony on rela- friend. inference, leaving it line experience tively commonplace simply murmur, event, any merely to “Amen.” This so-called disorder is inappropriate. enough certainly close to a violation it was surely one of “the host of attitudes and that, 704(b) when combined part daily living; syndromes helpfulness judge’s the trial assessment [on matters] 702, his amply justified exercise under [goes] exculpation or condemnation be- it. discretion to exclude of current yond the boundaries of knowl- edge.” CONCLUSION v. J.App. (quoting at 45-46 States United excluding err in district court did not The 584, (2d Cir.1975)). In Bright, F.2d proffered testi- DiDomenico’s short, court concluded that the district mony. testimony proffered expert psychiatric (1) Affirmed. defen- should be excluded because: experience “relatively common- dant’s was WARD, Senior District ROBERT J. (2) goes “beyond place” testimony such dissenting: Judge, knowledge.” of current boundaries reasoning is based The district court’s Although a respectfully dissent. dis- I where the Bright, in largely logic on deciding court has broad discretion trict Second Circuit wrote: expert testimony, to admit United whether psychiatry we 782, dealing In forensic Onumonu, F.2d v. 786-87 dogmatic. rather than Cir.1992); (2d Dwyer, must be humble United States Cir.1976), of an accused 924, The mind and motivation such decisions line accountability,” not on the other side who is not “immun[e] test, is, by [insanity Onumonu, at under defense] States v. United experience, left to the of 786, judgment a may require reversal of convic- complexity The of jury probe. expert testimony if of tion the exclusion ” “ traumatic ex- (quot- long-suppressed fears and ‘manifestly Id. erroneous.’ was sonality was a mental disease or personali- Disorder lifetime is of a periences beyond “one of host of is heir to defect fell All humankind us. all of ty of part that are syndromes attitudes and personality. defects (3) jury can be relied daily living;” and evaluate, psychi- upon eye, with a critical beyond go short, asks us to appellant testimony, such as that which Dr. atric psychiat- of conventional the boundaries by looking presented, Grove would have the tes- testimony. We think ric beyond “clinical label” ascertain sufficiently timony offered in- the defendant’s mental state whether support to make us in scientific grounded knowledge. guilty cluded indeed, cross the fron- or, present reach admissibility. tier Acceptance Psychiatry 1. General 517 F.2d at 586. Bright, Dependent Personality Disorder it was rea- majority holds that panel rely panel majority The district court and Judge exclude Cabranes to for sonable near- heavily Bright, decided such testimony because ly eighteen years ago. Since howev- jury, helpful to the have been would er, psychiatry, virtually like all fields of to Rule Fed.R.Evid.1 pursuant medicine, expanded has its boundaries presents two rationales panel majority considerably, becoming in- knowledge while case would be this why expert sophisticated in its creasingly understand- testimo- unhelpful to —because diseases, ing defects and disor- of mental by “piling on” (1) ny be redundant would Indeed, years Bright, after ders. eleven to the already available information wrote, gainsaid cannot be Circuit jury’s “[i]t task” “complicate (2) and would acceptance psychiatry enjoys general or clini- information by providing additional of medicine.” the field might create a source cal labels McBride, (2d Cir.1986) (cit- jury. confusion Oklahoma, 68, 81, ing Ake v. 470 U.S. presented reviewing the evidence After (1985)). 84 L.Ed.2d 53 As report prepared written jury and the to the knowledge of medical ex- the boundaries Grove, conclu- I reach different by Dr. admis- pand, so must the boundaries of too sion; namely Dr. Grove’s evidence. sible medical jury in determin- assisted the would I panel majority, Like believe the guilty had the defendant ing whether allegedly by Di- suffered precluded disorder knowledge, and is therefore not substantially on Domenico was similar I this conclusion Rule 702. base under allegedly accepted mental condition that afflicted psychiatry is three factors: panel Unlike the ma- and, Bright. court's contrary to the district defendant science however, Depen- jority, I do not believe that conclusion, identify ability the to merely place to a newfan- “beyond intended Personality is not Grove Disorder dent gled “clinical label” on DiDomenico’scondi- [psychiatric] of current the boundaries Rather, Dr. was to supporting prepared the tion. Grove rather than knowledge;” medical testify concerning the of a assertion that defendant’s court’s district effect which, “relatively years Bright, condition in the since was com- mental state alleged subject re- have has been the of considerable the witness would monplace,” sufficiently is point, search and now well-estab- precisely opposite to testified in the justify Per- lished to inclusion standard DiDomenico’s namely Dependent that Fed.R.Evid., Dependent relating Person- provides: 2. articles to Over 85 1. Rule journals ality appeared technical, in medical scientific, Disorder specialized or other If knowledge May January through R.M.A. 1990. fact to un- from will assist the trier of al., Personality Dependent a fact Disor- evidence or to determine et derstand Hirschfeld issue, DSM-IV, qualified witness a of Per- 5 Journal Perspectives der: for skill, training, knowledge, experience, or edu- (1991). sonality Disorders cation, testify may form of an thereto opinion or otherwise. wheth- has examined The Circuit Second diagnosis: psychiatric of work reference pres- testimony concerning er of Manual Statistical Diagnostic and organic objectively ascertainable of an ence Edition, Disorders, Revised Third Mental by the excluded trial may be injury brain “DSM-III-R”). (hereinafter judge trial that the Court ruled judge. The is listed Personality Disorder Dependent testimony, not- this admitting in not erred DSM-III-R, publication and defined that, ing Grove, “most is, according to which exclude a district [ajlthough subject.” text on standard respected, merely of- testimony which by which process The 235. J.App. at defendant’s fers an about descrip- listing and for qualifies disorder mental state re- form the capacity to requires and rigorous is tion DSM-III-R charged, commit offense quired to at DSM-III-R See peer review. stringent of a presence suggesting without criteria diagnostic xix-xxii, (“These xxix defect, psychiatrist or mental disease of mental classification and the DSM-III-R prepared here was current of a consensus impair- reflect organic disorders suffered McBride knowledge in our evolving that, of of purposes formulations believe ment. We admissibility, disorders field_”). determining DSM-III-R fact in the academic critical acceptance highly relevant general was gained mind, Fur- of issue, namely, appellant’s state communities.3 clinical and therefore, under and, on. was admissible growing literature thermore, there is 702. Personality Fed.R.Evid. Dependent of treatment Psychiatric American e.g., McBride, See Disorder. Psychiatric omitted). Association, ques- Cir.1986)(citations Treatments of Report logic McBride tion, then, Force A Task is whether Disorders: 2762- where Association situations Psychiatric should be extended American diagnosis or defect Accordingly, alleged disease mental or- ascertainable objectively to offer prepared on an based Dr. Grove which an admit- rather on injury, disorder but ganic brain on a well-established based psychi- by a determination tedly subjective “junk science”4 neither represented criteria, diagnostic atrist, using established “beyond the speculation nor scientific a mental from suffers an individual knowledge.” of current boundaries 1973, 48 La.L.Rev. edition, Act the Rehabilitation DSM-III- Referring predecessor its 3. that, (1988) (noting while DSM- 849-50 indicates, R reviews," it generally favorable III "received has been remarkable. impact DSM-III commentary subject frequent "a was also widely publication, it became its after Soon criticism”). as the common accepted in the Nevertheless, DSM that the remains the fact re- clinicians health language of mental by psy- upon widely relied used and series communicating disor- searchers survey one example, of experts "a For chiatrists. respon- professional they have ders for diagnostic seventy-five hundred psychiatry major textbooks sibility. Recent spanning the six fifty-two countries psychopa- discuss textbooks other and thology Regions revealed Organization World Health reference extensive either made a scale [0]n used DSM-III.... ... 72% terminology adopted largely its usefulness, to DSM-III measuring 'high, and low’ medium concepts. [by highly 46% useful was rated DSM-III Larson, at xviii. supra, at DSM-III-R survey respondents].” predecessors do and its DSM-III-R 849. legal critics, among and both their e.g., good J. Bruce certainty See we commentators. test academic "The best 4. replication, Health Winick, publication, Mental Right to science The science—the Refuse verification, and Perspective, 44 of consensus the science Amendment A First and Treatment: Huber, ("Although Re Galileo's W. Peter peer 46 review.” L.Rev. U.Miami 228 be- in the Courtroom venge: Science illness have Junk for mental diagnostic criteria Phar v. Merrell Dow particu- (1991), maceuticals, years, quoted in Daubert specific in recent more come larly Cir.1991), Inc., 1131 DSM-III-R], 951 F.2d crite- and DSM-III [in U.S. -, — laden.”); granted, rt. imprecise and value ria remain ce 121 Larson, L.Ed.2d Impairments and Mental Allen David McBride, 786 F.2d when, cine.” in the as that believe I disorder. testimony proffered by The at 51. upon diagnosis is based case, a present was, Bright in the words of Grove sufficiently well-estab- that criteria in scientific “sufficiently grounded widely a ac- court in inclusion justify lished beyond the “go not did manual, support” DSM-III- as such cepted medical knowledge.” Unit- of current the courtroom boundaries belongs in R, diagnosis that 517 F.2d at 586. Bright, as much as ed every bit to Rule pursuant injury.5 organic brain of an appeal, to this relevance particular Of Alleged Mental Defendant’s 2. Was was not Personality Disorder Dependent “Commonplace”? State Diagnos- of the edition in second listed that believe court did not The district Mental Disor- Manual of tic and Statistical necessary testimony was expert psychiatric Bright current when ders, was experience was the defendant’s because go us to be- wrote, asks “appellant of a commonplace” one “relatively psychi- of conventional yond the boundaries that are syndromes attitudes "host of think the testi- testimony. We opinion atric That living.” J.App. at 46. daily part of a sufficiently ground- not mony offered panel majori- adopted by the has been view or, reach to make us support ed in scientific Court, which writes ty of this of admis- frontier indeed, present cross sub- “addressed at 517 F.2d 586. sibility.” experience ject within matter knowl- of scientific frontiers When jury.” is admissible that which change, edge prepared by Dr. evaluation The medical At change as well. testimony must very picture. He paints a different Grove Personality Dependent Bright, the time of suffers from the defendant concludes that stan- recognized Disorder was Personality Disorder Dependent a severe diagnosis. treatise dard and that narcissistic features with severe peer time, further research Over this is Personality Disorder review, Dependent as de- mental disorder psy- a bonafide acceptance within [sic] gained has now respected, standard turn, fined in the most which, “enjoys profession, chiatric subject, i.e. medi- text on the [DSM-III-R]. the field of acceptance general Personality first suffering Dependent made its Disorder 6. say defendant 5. Of course Diagnostic and Statistical appearance in the is not in DSM-III-R included from disorder years five Disorders Manual of Mental legal matter. As the authors dispositive of the Bright: after point out: themselves Dependent provide clear is to purpose of DSM-III-R Personality categories diagnostic in order descriptions of Disorder Year of diag- investigators to clinicians to enable nose, Included? Publication Edition about, study, and treat communicate under- It is to be disorders. various mental No DSM-I here, and re- clinical inclusion stood No DSM-II category diagnostic purposes, of search Yes DSM-III Pedophilia Gambling does Pathological Yes DSM-III-R legal or meets imply that the condition xviii-xix. DSM-III-R at what constitutes criteria for other nonmedical psychiatrist Bright, disorder, disease, or mental mental "passive-dependent had a that personality the defendant scientific consid- disability. clinical and Bright, disorder." categorization of these involved erations was neither at This disorder 586. may not be disorders as mental conditions editions of subsequent nor in listed in DSM-II legal judgments, for exam- wholly relevant Diagnostic of Mental and Statistical Manual as indi- issues ple, Furthermore, into account such psychiatrist take Disorders. determination, disability responsibility, only Bright vidual once before the defendant examined trial, diagnosis." resulting Id. In competency. in a "hurried and B., spoke diagnosis, with in Section preparing As Grove at xxix. discussed his DSM-III-R occasions, separate for ultimately on five decide DiDomenico infra, jury that must it is the hours. total of thirteen legal mental disorder. of a defendant’s the effect determination, a making Rule 702 be- distinction a clear makes text That guided by princi- the must be district personali- and traits personality tween that ple “Personality as follows: ty disorder test for more certain deter- perceiv- “[tjhere is no enduring patterns traits used than experts be mining the thinking when to, about or relating ing, the inquiry whether the common sense oneself, exhibit- and are and environment qualified to layman would be untrained social important range of in a wide ed and to the best intelligently determine only when It is contexts. personal and issue with- particular possible degree mal- are inflexible traits personality having a those enlightenment from out im- significant either cause adaptive and subject understanding of the specialized occupational or in social ... pairment dispute.” in the involved subjective distress functioning ... Rule Fed. Disor- Note to Personality Advisory Committee they constitute that Ladd, ders_” added) (quoting (emphasis as- psychiatrists R.Evid. Some 414, 418 Vand.L.Rev. Testimony, 5 Expert clas- beings can be all human serted that v. Onu (1952)), quoted in United States disor- a mental suffering from sified Cir.1992). To monu, person- possess beings human der. All her self-description of DiDomenico’s hear indeed, complex traits; it is ality crime, time of her at the state emotional unique. make us traits that personality “to the more, to is not understand without however, beings, human Not all suffer how this emotional degree" disorder_ possible best re-With a mental from ability have guilty her might affect state court, it before this case now gard to provide this can knowledge. psychiatrist A had evi- that professional my understanding.” “specialized to Ms. DiDomenico available dence been routinely psychiatrists allow had been Courts now computers that the effect jury on enlighten psychologists evi- and recognize that stolen, capacity to her In Ake v. mental illness. the effects of im- seriously have been dence would Oklahoma, mental the direct result paired [her] example, Su- (1985), L.Ed.2d disorder. wrote, preme Court by C. Scott Prepared Report Psychiatric facts, through pro- gather [PJsychiatrists (emphasis M.D., J.App. at 235-36 Grove, interviews, examination, fessional added). share with elsewhere, they will out correctly points majority panel analyze the they informa- jury; judge or hear opportunity to an had plausible it draw gathered and tion her about DiDomenico testimony from mental the defendant’s about conclusions Parsons, relationship background and any condition, effects defense another testimony from they offer behavior; as well as on disorder ef- Valentovish, witness, described who men- defendant’s how opinions about However, Dr. on women. be- had affected his might fect Parsons tal condition simply more than Un- have done in question_ would time Grove at the havior pro- merely witnesses, de- can these who lay elaborate like facts.. might they the admission believe symptoms rationale for scribe vides dual state, of fact help the trier the defendant’s testimony: to relevant “elusive issue,” identify also but can psychiatrists a fact (1) “to determine Thus, of insani- symptoms deceptive” evidence.” and often “to understand why their observa- ty, witness and tell anticipates that Rule 702 Further, per- where merely supply are relevant. than tions something more will do rules, psychiatrists evidentiary may also mitted jury. An facts to into diagnosis a medical evi- translate understanding can a jury assist fact, the trier will assist language precisely what That is it. before dence in a form offer evidence therefore have accom- testimony would at hand. task meaning has plished. 1170 ing Jury Understanding in- investigation, in Victim- process of

Through this Testimony testimony, psychiatrists Expert Psychological ization: terpretation, generally Rape lay jurors, Syndrome who on Battered ideally assist Woman matters, training psychiatric in & Soc. Syndrome, have no Trauma 25 Colum.J.L. 277, and educated determi- to make a sensible Probs. 297-98 mental condition of nation about the above, I given For the reasons believe the offense.7 at the time of defendant jury that Dr. Grove could have assisted 80-81, (citation at 1095 at 105 S.Ct. Id. deciding whether defendant’s back- omitted) added); Arcor (emphasis see also affected her ground and mental disorder 1235, States, 1239- 929 F.2d v. United en ability guilty knowledge. Without to Cir.) (“ by concept expressed ‘The 40 alleged testimony his to establish this caus- to sufficiently Rules broad embrace is link, intel- jury al could not “determine ” testimony psychological psychiatric and possible ligently degree and to the best possess specialized knowl those who case, because, disputed in this issue in hu concerning mental aberrations edge clear, report makes Grove’s written behavior, knowledge will when such man mental condition was not so DiDomenico’s issues help jury to understand relevant layperson un- “commonplace” that a would ” v. (quoting United States in the case.’ derstand it. 1220, (8th Cir.1989)), Barta, 888 F.2d 1223 — 312, U.S. -, denied, 112 S.Ct. cert. Jury 3. The Role of the (1991)). L.Ed.2d 255 116 panel majority Judge finds that Ca- noted, Indeed, in a case as one court has reasonably could conclude that Dr. branes syndrome” woman dealing with “battered “complicate testimony would evidence: jury’s task.” This conclusion underesti- difficulty expert’s with the testimo- intelligence jury gener- mates the of the if an is ny is that it sounds as jury’s al and misreads the well-established knowledge jury to a about some- giving evaluating expert psychiatric testi- role thing jury knows as well mony. else, namely, the anyone reasonableness imminent serious person’s fear of observed, recently As this circuit has however, all, danger. That is not at deciding profiling that DNA evidence was directly aimed at. what judge, properly admitted the trial “[t]he purport- at an area It is aimed where by coun intelligent enough, aided knowledge jury may ed common sel, ignore unhelpful what is in its mistaken, very much an area where v. deliberations.” United States Jako expe- jurors’ logic, drawn from their own 786, Cir.) betz, (emphasis rience, wholly may lead to a incorrect (quoting B. Weinstein & original) 3 Jack conclusion, expert knowl- an area where Margaret Berger, A. Evidence Weinstein’s jurors to disre- edge would enable (1989)), de at 702-36 § 702[03] — being gard prior their conclusions as 104, nied, -, myths rather than common common (1992); v. L.Ed.2d 63 cf. knowledge. 725, (2d Cir.1984) Torniero, (“The Rights expect of the Bill of 478 A.2d framers Kelly, N.J. State resolving (1984); Koss, juries capable of 49 Ohio ed that would be see also State (1990)(not- in the federal disputed issues of fact 551 N.E.2d St.3d non- litigation, Even in civil where jurisdictions confronted with courts. ing that most expert testimony perspicuous issues and abstruse have allowed the issue acknowledged a proliferate, we have never concerning syndrome); woman battered ‘complexityexception’ right Hennum, 441 N.W.2d State (citation omitted)), cert. (Minn.1989)(same); Murphy, trial.” Susan Assist- goes equally Although Ake was concerned with 7. insanity, applies of the elements of the crime. its rationale one exper- light it in their interpreting 782 788, L.Ed.2d 83 1110, 105 S.Ct. of U.S. out investi- tise, laying their and then (1985). jury, analytic process the to gative and instructed be Furthermore, jury can “the party each enable psychiatrists the solely their opinion is expert’s that the de- make its most accurate jury to the complete their assistance, subject to and the issue truth on the termination of unreliable.” it consider they if rejection them. before 1194, Williams, 583 States v. United 81, Oklahoma, at U.S. 470 v. U.S. Ake Cir.1978), 439 1200 Moreover, added). (emphasis (1979). 1095 77 at 1025, L.Ed.2d 59 S.Ct. 99 conflict- be mere fact there “[t]he good and intelligence the in This faith experts is not sufficient testimony by ing ability to its to jury extends of sense Indeed, evidence. to exclude basis testimony. psychiatric on eye a critical cast among is conflict uncommonly, there 880, 901 Estelle, v. See Barefoot subject.” any United most experts on L.Ed.2d n. n. 51; McBride, at see 786 F.2d also v. States professional (“All of these Torniero, at United psychiatric of usefulness doubts jury to evaluate of (“It is the function to the attention called can be predictions a decision on reach conflicting and evidence argument entire jury. Petitioner’s society’s by applying responsibility criminal jury premise on the ... is founded dispute. legal issues values to the the wheat separate to be able will judgment, legal moral making and this in this not share doWe the chaff from differ- not be shielded jury should adversary process.”) evaluation low psychi- profession [i.e., in a opinion ences in United States added), cited (emphasis devoid of entirely never be atry] that can 734. Torniero, F.2d at (citation omit- disagreements.” subjective matter, government instant In the ted)). profes- challenge Dr. Grove’s to free the issue Furthermore, precisely because cross-ex- vigorously qualifications, sional human deals with presented in case diagnosis, or as to his Dr. Grove amine knowledge behavior, than an area of rather on stand psychiatrist its own place laypersons (e.g. foreign to totally most par- diagnosis in Dr. Grove’s testify about jurors are technology), the detection DNA Per- Dependent effects and the ticular pre any evidence to evaluate able better general. See sonality Disorder As one commentator Grove. sented Dr. As Williams, at 1200. aware factfinder must argued, “the has concluded, has Supreme Court and psychiatry ih fields results [the insanity defense: anof context interpreter. vary with psychology] however, sci- not, an exact Psychiatry is expertise is Furthermore, this ‘soft science’ widely disagree ence, psychiatrists and sense the common likely overwhelm less men- what constitutes on frequently and science’ ‘hard average juror than of the diagnosis illness, appropriate on the tal to his common it closer expertise because behavior given attached to be recognize usually jurors understanding and treatment, and on cure on symptoms, Herasim opinion.” subjectivity of Per- dangerousness. of future likelihood Admissi chuk, A Practical Guide single, no often is there haps because in Crimi Evidence Expert bility Novel legal on conclusion accurate 702, 22 St. Federal Trials Under nal case, remain juries given in a insanity Mary’s 197-98 L.J. issue, and on this factfinders primary both underestimates majority panel differences they must resolve the additional the wisdom of profession within psychia- human behavior insight into by each offered basis my is no doubt There provide. trist can By organizing party.... defendant’s not, ex- without could that the mind results history, examination possible the best “to testimony, assess pert behavior, information, and other expertise in the DiDomenico, obligation first who was al- degree” whether i.e., psychiatry,” to “do courtroom is Dependent Personali- legedly afflicted present opin- medical information and knowledge. There- Disorder, guilty had ty the defendant’s mental state ion about deci- the district court’s fore, find I would explain and to detail and motivation testimony un- Dr. Grove’s preclude sion to medical-psychiatric the reason for his manifestly erroneous. 702 to be der Rule When, however, “ulti- conclusions. Is- 704(b) Opinion questions on Ultimate are formulated B. Rule mate issue” — put expert Mental State to the wit- by the law and sue of Defendant’s “yea” say must then or ness who holds that the district majority panel The expert is re- “nay,” then the witness Dr. Grove’s testi- excluded properly leap logic. He no quired to make 704(b). to Fed.R.Evid. mony pursuant himself to medical longer addresses history of Rule However, legislative infer or in- concepts but instead must Congress did not 704(b) clear that makes unspeakable, name- tuit is in fact what testimony of the preclude intend relationship ly, probable between 704(b) Rule by Grove. proffered sort concepts legal or moral medical imper- narrowly area of defined maps out such as free will. These constructs inappropri- testimony which would missible by impermissible leaps logic made of the judgment ately substitute jury.... expert witnesses confuse by fact-finder. As outlined for that of the course, per- must be Psychiatrists, of counsel, defense testify fully the de- mitted present would not prepared to Grove was diagnosis, mental state and fendant’s catego- into that the threshold have crossed (in motivation clinical and common- proscribed by Rule ry of evidence which terms) alleged at the time sense 704(b). judge permit jury act so as to or majority rules that the assert- panel the ultimate conclusion to reach psychiatric testimo- ed distinction between they only they are about which Grove, and by Dr. the sort offered ny, of expert.... legal conclusion as to whether the ultimate Moreover, precluding rationale for knowledge, possessed guilty the defendant opinion psychiatric ultimate the DiDomenico province which was beyond insanity defense to extends cam- nothing than “semantic jury, is more any mental state of the defen- ultimate inconsistent with This view is ouflage.” legal conclu- dant that is relevant 704(b), behind Rule congressional intent sought proven. sion to be interpretations of judicial as with well 225, Cong., 2d 230-31 S.Rep. No. Sess. 704(b). fact, just distinc- it is Rule added), (1984)(emphasis reprinted in 1984 704(b) seeks to establish. which Rule tion Thus, ex- 3412-13. an U.S.C.C.A.N. re- Judiciary Senate Committee As the presenting a pert precluded is not from that, indicated, Congress intended port diagnosis, in clinical psychiatric/medical 704(b)], expert [ujnder Rule [proposed terms, from which a and commonsense testimony would be limited to concerning might then draw inferences diag- their explaining presenting possessed the mental a defendant whether noses, the defendant such as whether finding guilt. required legal state for a or defect mental disease had a severe Richard, 969 F.2d See United States characteristics of such what (“As (10th Cir.) interpreted, 854-55 defect, any, may have if been. disease or 704(b) experts from ex- only prevents Rule limitation on for this The basis or infer- stating the final conclusion pressly Amer- ably stated testimony ... actual ence as to a defendant’s Psychiatric Association: ican the ex- prevent state. The rule does opinions testifying ex- to facts or psychiatrists pert is clear [I]t or infer medicine, could conclude not the law. As from which perts requisite mental had the the defendant such, psychiatrist’s it is clear that — denied, Cir.) (4th -, U.S. denied, state.”), cert. (1986)). 93 L.Ed.2d (1992), S.Ct. and cert. 248, 121 L.Ed.2d — 1009, 122 U.S. -, Furthermore, expert may con- Gip (1993); L.Ed.2d of mental disease cerning the effects Cir.1988)(“[psy 714, 716 son, defect: psycho his views expressed chologist] prohibit 704(b) not meant This left to legal, terms. logical, qualities that describes determining independently task jury its part fact a mental disease.... intent”); criminal degree of [defendant’s] question may track wording of 1024, Alvarez, F.2d 837 v. States United asking the disease test if legal the expert fact that Cir.) (despite the (11th 1031 suffering from the disease one prevents inference “obvious an testimony created quali- and understanding the nature from the this inference left expert ... the the rule. not violate an act does ty of ‘state expressly He did not jury to draw. ultimately to decide left Therefore, his the inference.’ strongly was so the disease whether denied, 704(b)”), cert. rule not violate did that the present himself suf- defendant L.Ed.2d 100 1026, 108 S.Ct. 486 U.S. ap- to being unable of effect fered Dotson, 817 v. (1988); States 234 United act. quality his preciate of Cir.) (“As legisla (5th 1127, 1132 F.2d Kristiansen, 901 F.2d v. States United indicates, prohibits rule 704 history tive added); Cir.1990) (8th (emphasis 1463, 1466 ‘ultimate testifying as experts Newman, v. United see also States did or the defendant legal issue’—whether (“The Cir.1988) (5th F.2d mind— of requisite state did not ultimate opinion on the offer an may not explain’ and ‘present experts to permits yet inwas fact defendant of whether the issues is, analysis of the their diagnosis, that their pre- crime lacked or to commit induced knowledge special on their facts based However, testify that he disposition. vacated in experts.”), as them qualifying disease, or defect defendant’s mental F.2d 1034 part, 821 reh’g granted part, more sus- made him intelligence subnormal v. Cir.1987); States also United (5th see persua- person to usual than the ceptible Cir.1988) (8th 1099, 1102 F.2d Dubray, agents or rendered him by government sion ‘schizophrenia,’ ‘psychosis,’ (“Diagnoses of state of forming specific incapable of be made must mental disorders or other (citation the offense.” required for mind assumptions of and methodology using the Evidence omitted)); 11704[03] Weinstein’s medicine, not neces psychiatric 704(b)] all such reaches (“[Rule at 704-19 the criminal of those sarily the same as in a issues, premeditation such as ‘ultimate’ insanity does not the law of law. Just case, predisposition or lack homicide vague often changing incorporate going to As with entrapment. contemporary categories of defense, may not an insanity psychosis method, definitions of ultimate on this kind opinion offer an legally signifi necessarily entail do however, may testify issue, he or she legal wrong.”). right cant notions or disease mental defendant’s enact Rule Indeed, did not “Congress on the its defect, defendant’s effect diagnostic the flow 704(b) to limit so as added). mind.”) (emphasis state of Every actual fact information. and clinical where ex- sure, are cases there To be condi- concerning the defendant’s testify as to permitted not been perts have the enact- after admissible still as tion But defendant. the mental state to 704(b) it was before. Rule ment of cases, the instant unlike of those in each style ‘changes Rather, professionals were mental health appeal, used that can answer question legal ultimate testify as asked the defense the offense both establish ” a trial upholding example, For Edwards, issue. v. States thereto.’ psychiatric tes- limitation on court’s Cir.1987) Unit- (11th (quoting 262, 265 F.2d indicated, Circuit the Seventh timony, 1069, 1071-72 Mest, 789 v. ed States knowledge solely cerning guilty rested with psychologist a case where is not “[t]his lay jury. psychological gave an logically re that, accepted, would if terms finding an ultimate particular quire Analysis Error C. Harmless fact, that inference for left but question expert testi- The erroneous exclusion of make; question called for jury to require automatic reversal mony does final infer to make that expert himself court com- by this Court. When district legal question decide the ence and evidentiary error that not rise mits an does Hillsberg,

terms.” United error, the re- to the level of constitutional Cir.), viewing apply must a harmless error L.Ed.2d 821 Onumonu, 967 analysis. Felak, (1987); see also United F.2d at 788. (“ (8th Cir.1987) 794, 797 [defen intended psychiatrist] dant’s matter, sought defendant In the instant beliefs, his was obsessed [defendant] guilty she did not to demonstrate that possess not ‘the a result he did and that as knowledge computer equipment satisfy the mean requisite mental state trial, this stolen. At and now before was or ‘evasion’ or ing the words ‘willful’ that, Court, person she asserted while a not allegations in the as contained ‘fraud’ realize suffering a mental disorder would ”). him.’ against raised stolen, equipment that the her mental clear that Dr. transcript makes The trial understanding precluded disorder her concerning Di- would have testified Grove equipment. illegal status of the diagnosis psychiatric/medical Domenico’s claim, making expert testimony á conclu- reaching legal the ultimate without Precisely de- absolutely critical. because guilty had to whether defendant sion as mental condition was not com- fendant’s indicated, counsel knowledge. As defense monplace, testimony well testifying certainly not be Dr. Grove will understanding have assisted the her or did not know did ability and its effect on her condition [DiDomenico] computers were stolen. That’s that the knowledge. guilty Accordingly, this usurp him my intention to have testimony may “produced a different jury. But he will function of the (quoting verdict.” id. at 789 See facts and about this disorder Dwyer, will, I people that about its effect on Cir.1976)). The district court’s decision to believe, very very, valuable preclude Dr. Grove’s certainly they fact. And free trier of error. harmless accept reject Dr. Grove’s purpose they it for whatever and use D. Conclusion him I don’t intend to have wish. So reasons, it was an abuse testify on the ultimate issue. For the above preclude judge discretion for the trial J.App. at 32. ex- of defendant’s from de- upon representation Based pert concerning whether DiDomen- witness counsel, I that Dr. Grove’s fense believe Personality alleged Dependent ico’s severe prohibited by proffered testimony was not impaired ability guilty her to have Disorder 704(b). Any by defense coun- efforts remand. knowledge. I would reverse and testimony during prohibited elicit di- sel to could have rect or redirect examination objection a sustainable

been met with Furthermore, in- government. when

structing jury, judge the district could testified

have made clear that Grove

concerning medical/psychiatric matters legal con-

that the ultimate determination

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Angelina Didomenico

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Jan 25, 1993

Citation: 985 F.2d 1159

Docket Number: 152, Docket 92-1206

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.