United States v. Rahm

141 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Finley

    301 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 223 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Finley, the court noted that in Rahm, in concluding that the district court erred, the Ninth Circuit "drew a distinction between the ultimate issue — whether [the defendant] knew the bills were counterfeit — and the proffered testimony of the defendant's poor vision, from which the jury could, but was not compelled, to infer that she did not know the bills were counterfeit."

    Mr. Finley's mental condition, as set forth by Dr. Wicks, will be presented at trial to show that Mr. Finley did not have the intent to defraud, the requisite mens rea for the crime. The case of United States v. Rahm[,] 993 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1993) contains a very similar fact pattern and is legal authority for the admission of the evidence. I have attached a copy of the opinion for your convenience.

  2. U.S. v. Morales

    108 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 320 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a non-constitutional error is harmless if "it is more probable than not that the error did not materially affect the verdict"

    In cases decided since Brodie, however, we have held Rule 704(b) does not preclude an expert from testifying to a predicate matter, even if the jury might infer the necessary mens rea from such testimony, so long as the testimony as to the predicate matter does not necessarily imply the mens rea element. See United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1411-12 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Gomez-Norena, 908 F.2d 497, 501-02 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 947, 111 S. Ct. 363, 112 L.Ed.2d 326 (1990). We take this opportunity to overrule Brodie.

  3. Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc.

    740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 374 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court erred by "pass[ing] its greatest concern about [the expert's] testimony to the jury to determine" and there was little "indication that the district court assessed, or made findings regarding, the scientific validity or methodology of [another expert's] proposed testimony"

    We treat the erroneous admission of expert testimony the same as all other evidentiary errors, by subjecting it to harmless error review. See United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1415 (9th Cir.1993). We reverse “only if the error affect[ed] a substantial right of the party.

  4. U.S. v. Marsh

    26 F.3d 1496 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 18 times

    We review for abuse of discretion the district court's refusal to allow an expert to testify regarding a witness's psychiatric condition. United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1409-10 (9th Cir. 1993). The defense proffered the testimony of an expert witness to establish that Doe had a "dependent personality disorder.

  5. United States v. Ray

    956 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Here, the district court instead focused on Dr. Karim’s bottom-line opinions, rather than "his proposed expert testimony ," id. , contrary to our guidance in Christian . There, we emphasized "that a district court deciding whether to admit expert testimony should evaluate whether that testimony ‘will assist the trier of fact in drawing its own conclusion as to a fact in issue’ and should not limit its consideration to ‘the existence or strength of an expert’s opinion .’ " Id. (quoting United States v. Rahm , 993 F.2d 1405, 1411 (9th Cir. 1993) ). We explained this is necessary because the doctor there could not have testified that the defendant "lacked the capacity to form the specific intent to threaten," id. at 812 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 704(b) ), and "[i]t would make little sense to require a conclusive opinion in determining admissibility, and then absolutely to forbid expression of the opinion in testimony," id. (quoting Rahm , 993 F.2d at 1411 n.3 ).

  6. U.S. v. Jawara

    462 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 216 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding fraud related to immigration documents and conspiracy to commit marriage fraud to avoid immigration laws were not of similar character

    Nonetheless, in light of Bayer-Boring's extensive academic qualifications and experience and the relevance and value of her testimony to the jury, the "proffered testimony otherwise satisfie[d] the requirements for admission." United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1412 (9th Cir.1993).

  7. United States v. Finley

    No. 01-10087 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2001)

    Mr. Finley’s mental condition, as set forth by Dr. Wicks, will be presented at trial to show that Mr. Finley did not have the intent to defraud, the requisite mens rea for the crime. The case ofUnited States v. Rahm[,] 993 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1993) contains a very similar fact pattern and is legal authority for the admission of the evidence. I have attached a copy of the opinion for your convenience.

  8. Enyart v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, Inc.

    823 F. Supp. 2d 995 (N.D. Cal. 2011)   Cited 4 times

    A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an “erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the facts.” United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1410 (9th Cir.1993). The basic test for admissibility under Rule 702 is whether the expert will aid the trier of fact.

  9. U.S. v. Oregana

    No. C 02-0388 PJH (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006)

    Id. at 1036. Oregana also relies on the Ninth Circuit's decisions in United States v. Finley, 301 F.3d 1000, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2002), United States v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179, 1189 (9th Cir. 2005), and United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1993), discussed in detail below. The government objects to Dr. Perez-Arce's testimony on Rule 704(b) grounds and also on the grounds that it constitutes an impermissible expert opinion.

  10. United States v. Christian

    749 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Christian, however, we held that the district court improperly excluded expert testimony by applying the wrong standard, remanded for the application of the correct standard, but ordered a new trial regardless of the outcome of the re-examination.

    We have explained that a district court deciding whether to admit expert testimony should evaluate whether that testimony “will assist the trier of fact in drawing its own conclusion as to a ‘fact in issue’ ” and should not limit its consideration to “the existence or strength of an expert's opinion.” United States v. Rahm, 993 F.2d 1405, 1411 (9th Cir.1993) (emphasis in original). In Rahm, the defendant was charged with possession of counterfeit currency and attempting to pass counterfeit currency; her only defense was that she did not know the currency was counterfeit.