means of challenging that evidence: testimony from an expert who has also examined him.”). Contrary to Hunter’s assertions, Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), does not foreclose this limited use of the contested evidence. See Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586, 594, 129 S.Ct. 1841, 173 L.Ed.2d 801 (2009) (noting that with the exception of coerced statements, “tainted evidence — evidence whose very introduction does not constitute the constitutional violation, but whose obtaining was constitutionally invalid — is admissible for impeachment”). Moreover, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Hunter’s statements to Dr. Berg and Dr. Aniline were effectively “coerced,” there was no constitutional violation. See Cheever, 134 S.Ct. at 601 (<HOLDING>). Second, Hunter’s diminished capacity defense
holding that statements made during a compulsory psychological examination are admissible to rebut a defendants diminished capacity defense holding victims statements admissible under state of mind exception to rebut defendants claim of accident andor suicide holding victims statements to coworkers admissible to rebut defendants claim that they had a good marriage holding that the defendants statement was involuntary because it was made during a court ordered mental examination and a state statute provided that such statements would remain confidential holding statements admissible to rebut defendants claims of selfdefense suicide or accidental death