v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 106 S.Ct. 292, 296, 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985) (noting the possibility that “the introduction of expert testimony with no basis could ... be so lacking in reliability, and so prejudicial, as to deny a defendant a fair trial”); United States v. Williams, 447 F.2d 1285, 1290 (5th Cir.1971) (en banc) (stating that introduction of expert opinion without opportunity to cross-examine author as to bases of opinion would infringe confrontation clause rights of defendant), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 954, 92 S.Ct. 1168, 31 L.Ed.2d 231 (1972); 3 Weinstein’s Evidence Tf 703[04]. Rational use of expert evidence in the courtroom, however, demands that defense testimory be equally open to scrutiny by the government. Cf. District of Columbia v. Cooper, 483 A.2d 317, 322-23 (D.C.1984) (<HOLDING>). We also agree that the trial court must have
holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal holding that civil defendant had the right to crossexamine plaintiffs expert psychological witness about plaintiffs juvenile record in part because examination of this record formed part of the basis for experts testimony holding that the trial court did not err in admitting juvenile records where counsel stated in his opening statement that the witness had no record when in actuality the witness had nine juvenile adjudications for burglary holding that accused has right to crossexamine witness on issue of a witness potential bias that stemmed from the fact that the witness had instituted a civil action for damages against the defendant arising from the crime charged holding appeal of termination is limited to information that is part of the record