Agent Calles. As to these facts, the jury necessarily had to weigh Defendant’s credibility. The problem facing us is the impact that the testimony of Dr. Ornelas, Ms. Baum, and Ms. Carlson might have had on the jury’s deliberations under the circumstances outlined above. The admission of the expert conclusion of a highly credible physician that the girls were in fact sexually abused, coupled with the admission of the testimony of two counselors who assumed that the girls had been abused, and stated it as a fact, undoubtedly had some effect on the jury’s deliberations. However, nearly all of Dr. Ornelas’s, Ms. Baum’s, and Ms. Carlson’s testimony was properly admitted at trial, and, as discussed above, there is no evidentiary problem with the testim 8 N.E.2d 915, 920 (Mass.App.Ct.1994) (<HOLDING>). However, after carefully studying these
holding the error harmless due to eyewitness corroboration of the victims testimony holding exclusion was harmless error holding that a specific instruction was unnecessary because eyewitness was crossexamined and the eyewitness testimony was discussed in defense counsels opening statement holding no abuse of discretion to exclude expert eyewitness identification testimony where governments case relied on more than eyewitness identification holding admissible expert testimony concerning factors that may impair eyewitness identification and rejecting that concerning a particular eyewitness credibility and the statistical probability of eyewitness misidentification