I think it was Steve44 who said on another thread that the jurors should be told certain things before the trial started. Here are a couple of instructions that this jury has already received that might make you all feel better about Dr. F's testimony.
Red by me.
Preliminary Criminal 10 − Credibility of Witnesses
In deciding the facts of this case, you should consider what testimony to accept, and
what to reject. You may accept everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it.
In evaluating testimony, you should use the tests for accuracy and truthfulness that
people use in determining matters of importance in everyday life, including such factors as:
the witness’s ability to see or hear or know the things the witness testified to; the quality of
the witness’s memory; the witness’s manner while testifying;
whether the witness has any
motive, bias, or prejudice; whether the witness is contradicted by anything the witness said
or wrote before trial, or by other evidence; and
the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony
when considered in the light of the other evidence.
Consider all of the evidence in light of reason,
common sense, and experience.
Preliminary Criminal 11 − Expert Witness
A witness qualified as an expert by education or experience may state opinions on
matters in that witness’s field of expertise, and may also state reasons for those opinions.
Expert opinion testimony should be judged just as any other testimony.
You are not
bound by it. You may accept it or reject it, in whole or in part, and you should give it as
much credibility and weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s qualifications
and experience, the reasons given for the opinions, and all the other evidence in the case.
