Did the trial an%or appeal court err by allowing the testisying "erperts" to
use statements of unadijucated witnesses as bisis for their opinion and
present their findings as fact, to the jury when such testimang is using
hear say evidence?

Did the triol court err by allowing the prosecution to use the testimany
that he is not boord certified inlpsychiotry?
foreasic

Did the frisl court err by allowing the non boord certified "erpent "to
continve testifying and accept his testimony when he steted, on recond.
be Keeps up with all studics, ceposts, ete. related to set offenders when he
d mant ly refosed to read a new report on set offenders within stote of Toxes
nd ststed the report would not alter his opinion?

Did the trisl %/
aaother psychistrists opinion to form besis for their own opinion wher said
osychictrist wss not presest during trial, theneby not ollowing the defense
to cross exemine him?

Did the tril "dor appeel court err by allowing the defendant fo be toial as a
SUP peior to any trectment which addresses issues suh as minimizotion deniclet.
which both erperts soy is the norm cad woold be sddressed in treat ment and when
such issus does not make one o sup or mcke one more likely to re offend?

Did the triel court err by allowing the prosecution to use aspects of
criminal lewl.coses, codea, ete.) in a civil triol but did not allow the defense
to use spects of criminel lew, such as "corfraststior cleuse "(see question #45,
theeby crecting o dousle stondard in fovor of the prosecution?

misleding infor metion, meliciously, to the jury which is, in essence,
prosecutorisl misconduct?

Whether the court of appeal erred in allowing the use of statements of unaddressed witnesses as basis for expert opinions and presenting their findings as fact to the jury