Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, which of the following accurately describes the scope of expert testimony concerning a criminal defendant's mental state?
If the court finds the testimony helpful, an expert may express an opinion on the defendant's guilt or innocence.
An expert may describe the defendant's psychological condition but must not state an opinion on whether the defendant possessed the specific intent constituting an element of the charged offense.
An expert may testify directly that the defendant lacked the requisite intent if the testimony is based on reliable scientific methods.
An expert may state whether the defendant had the mental state required for the crime as long as the expert qualifies the opinion with the phrase "to a reasonable degree of certainty."
Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a) generally permits expert testimony that embraces an ultimate issue, but Rule 704(b) creates a special limitation in criminal cases. An expert may describe or explain psychological conditions and other matters within the expert's field, yet the expert may not state an opinion that the defendant did or did not possess the specific mental state or intent that constitutes an element of the crime or a defense. Determining that ultimate mental-state element is reserved for the trier of fact. Therefore, the only correct statement is that an expert may testify about the defendant's condition but must stop short of declaring whether the required intent was present; the other options incorrectly allow ultimate-mental-state opinions or even direct opinions on guilt or innocence.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is it important for expert witnesses to avoid discussing intent?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What types of testimony can an expert witness provide in a criminal case?