of that question and answer, and I don’t think it was isolated to one question and one answer, was that the opinions that he expressed were based on many things, not just the physical exam, but also the history that was taken, the consultation of the other reports and all of the other information. And that if he were asked to say could he express an opinion as to whether or not there was abuse strictly by physical findings, his answer was he could not; however, when he looked at the whole picture as to all of the information to be considered, it was his opinion that abuse had taken place. So your objection is noted. You had the opportunity to cross-examine at the point in time. I did specifically ask whether or not you had any objection to the doctor being excu d 531, 535 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Despite defense counsel’s failure to timely
holding a failure to object to a witnesses testimony while the witness was on the stand justified overruling a motion for a mistrial made several witnesses later holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial holding that a district court was entitled to accept or reject testimony on the basis of the witnesses demeanor and candor or lack thereof and contradictions in the witnesses testimony holding that expert testimony on effect of drug abuse on witness memory would intrude upon the jurys role in assessing witness credibility only because the defendant had not put forth any evidence to show that the witnesses actually used drugs and that thus there was no factual link between the experts testimony and the specific witnesses holding that criminal defendants are entitled to obtain for impeachment purposes statements made by government witnesses to government agents that relate to the subject matter of the witnesses direct testimony