Your Honor, thank you.
We'd like to start with the issue of the admissibility of the testimony of Dr. Park Dietz.
And before I call Dr. Dietz to the stand, we did submit a brief this morning on this issue of the admissibility, and particularly on the applicability of the Kelly Frye testimony.
We think that under the People v. Stoll case, which is a California Supreme Court case, very recent chronologically, the Kelly Frye test is not even applicable to this testimony because -- for two reasons:
It's not new to psychology, as you will hear from Dr. Dietz;
And secondly, it is not even conceivable for this testimony to be considered in the words of Stoll, misleading of a scientific infallibility. It will be clear that it's Dr. Dietz' testimony, his personal opinion based on his expertise, there's no way the jury can say, oh, that must be the answer; we'll have to go with that under Stoll. That means Kelly Frye doesn't apply.
We would like to proceed with the testimony subject to your ruling.
It is not even conceivable for this testimony to be considered in the words of Stoll, misleading of a scientific infallibility. It will be clear that it's Dr. Dietz' testimony, his personal opinion based on his expertise, there's no way the jury can say, oh, that must be the answer.