assert a Brady violation, nor does he assert a failure to comply with disclosure obligations under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C). Aplt’s Br. at 20; Aplt's Rep.Br. at 9. 4 . Campbell testified only that he had a B.S. degree in business administration with a specialization in accounting. 5 . Although the court noted that Thomas would be important specifically to respond to testimony from former WMC employees about Kennedy’s deviation from industry norms, rather than to respond to Campbell, Thomas was retained and qualified for his general expertise in the metals industry. 6 . We also note that one of Kennedy’s witnesses, Lloyd Evan Qualls, had a master's degree in accounting and was employed as an auditor, although Kennedy did not call him to testify based on his accounting e 0th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Dunn v. Roberts, 963 F.2d 308, 314
holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses holding that diminished capacity is a defense only to specific intent crimes holding that due process entitled indigent defendant to psychiatrist to present insanity defense and crossexamine state psychiatrists because of the tremendous reliance jurors place on psychiatric testimony where there is often no single accurate psychiatric conclusion on legal insanity holding that due process right to present a defense is subject to forfeiture if not properly asserted in the trial court holding that due process entitled indigent defendant to psychiatrist to present defense of lack of capacity to form specific intent and to crossexamine governments psychiatrist on this point