During a criminal trial for extortion, a psychiatrist testified regarding defendant. His testimony and opinion were based primarily on information and reports from other doctors. Defendant was convicted, and appealed raising the contention that the admission of hearsay in the testimony of the psychiatrist violated his right to confront adverse witnesses. The court upheld the conviction stating that the admission of hearsay was in accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 703, which expressly permits experts to base their testimony on evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible, so long as it is of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field in forming opinions. The admission of hearsay did not violate the Constitutional right to confront witnesses, because the defendant had pretrial access to the hearsay information relied upon.
1. Rule 703 was discussed in the Lawson case. Rule 703 states that "[t]he facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence." Explain why the Lawson court held that the opinion of Dr. Sheldon was admissible.
2. Prepare a brief for the Lawson case. Include the facts, issues, rules, analysis, and conclusion of the court.