119 S.Ct. at 1171. 31 . Imwinkelried, supra, at 2284-85. 32 . See id. at 2293-94. 33 . 93 F.3d 1337 (7th Cir.1996). 34 . Id. at 1346. 35 . 974 F.Supp. 1198, 1204-05 (C.D.Ill.1997), aff'd, 165 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir.1999). 36 . See, eg., United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126, 129-30 (1st Cir.1995) (finding trial court erred in excluding expert testimony regarding defendant's mental condition that caused him to give false confession); United States v. Raposo, 1998 WL 879723, at 5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.16, 1998) (admitting expert testimony on false confessions); Callis v. State, 684 N.E.2d 233, 239 (Ind.App.1997) (affirming trial court's decision to admit, on limited grounds, expert witness testimony regarding police interrogation tactics); State v. Buechler, 253 Neb. 727, 572 N.W.2d 65, 72-74 (1998) (<HOLDING>); State v. Baldwin, 125 N.C.App. 530, 482
holding a proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been holding that testimony of defense expert on false confessions properly excluded as not sufficiently reliable holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it excluded expert testimony on false confessions holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive