Broker’s testimony. But nothing in the record suggests the district court ever reviewed or evaluated Dr. Broker’s expert report after American Family offered it as a proffer. Rather, the district court indicated the proffer would be made part of the record and then stated, “I don’t need it.” Moreover, the district court excluded the expert testimony months before it received the proffer, based solely on Mr. Adam-scheck’s one-sentence characterization of Dr. Broker’s opinions. 7 . In its brief, American Family correctly stated that Rule 702 requires analysis of relevance. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786 ("[U]nder the Rules the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.”); id. at 591, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (<HOLDING>). In fulfilling its ga-tekeeping function, a
recognizing that the need for the expert was so great that the decision to preclude the expert effectively amounted to dismissal of case recognizing rule 702s requirement that expert evidence assist the trier of fact and concluding that tjhis condition goes primarily to relevance holding that a defendant not only has a right to be examined by an expert but also has the right to have an expert appointed to assist him in his defense recognizing relevance of information and that need for this information outweighs the burden to appellants recognizing rule