The evidence was therefore relevant to his defense and should not have been excluded.United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1993)At defendant’s possession of counterfeit currency trial, she sought to introduce the testimony of an expert who would testify that the defendant “showed a consistent tendency to overlook important details” based on tests the psychiatrist administered. The testimony was improperly excluded by the trial court.

A remand was required in this case to apply the proper standard.United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1993)At defendant’s trial for possession of counterfeit currency, she sought to introduce the testimony of an expert who would testify that the defendant “showed a consistent tendency to overlook important details” based on tests the psychiatrist administered. The testimony was improperly excluded by the trial court.