Jernigan

MEMORANDUM *

Rachel Alaffa Jernigan appeals her conviction for armed bank robbery, alleging a number of trial errors and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that a real weapon was used in the bank robbery. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus. The district court found that Dr. Loftus’ testimony regarding the weaknesses of eyewitness identification would not be helpful to the jury, and it issued Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction § 4.14, which we have approved in the past. United States v. Rincon, 28 F.3d 921, 925-26 (9th Cir.1994). While such an instruction will not immunize all decisions to exclude the information Dr. Loftus would have presented, the court here invited the parties to submit a more comprehensive instruction, but Jernigan never did so.

The district court also properly excluded the expert testimony regarding Jernigan’s polygraph examination. Excluding such evidence does not violate Jernigan’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 312 , 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (plurality), and the district court did not abuse its discretion…