## Facts

- Roberta Dupre and Beverly Stambaugh were indicted in federal court for wire fraud and conspiracy arising from an “advance fee” investment scheme.
- The scheme solicited $1,000 payments from investors based on claims of access to frozen Marcos-family assets and promised extraordinary returns, including representations that a New York bank would pay investors large sums once the project “funded.”
- The government alleged investors lost over $1 million and that substantial amounts were spent on defendants’ personal expenses.
- Before trial, the government moved in limine to exclude Dupre’s proposed psychological expert testimony.
- Dupre proffered an expert report diagnosing bipolar disorder and asserting that, combined with religious beliefs and personality traits, it contributed to a good-faith belief that she was acting under divine direction and would be able to repay investors.
- The expert report also indicated Dupre at times had realistic perception, good judgment, and emotional flexibility.

## Issues

1. Whether a wire-fraud defendant may introduce expert psychological testimony (bipolar disorder and religiously framed beliefs) to negate fraudulent intent, including intent to cause actual financial harm.
2. Whether the probative value of the proffered testimony was substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion in limine and excluded the proffered psychological expert testimony.
- The court stated that, to prove wire fraud, the government must show the defendant had a purpose of causing actual financial harm to another.
- The court found the expert evidence did not meaningfully bear on whether Dupre had the required fraudulent intent and, even if minimally relevant, posed substantial Rule 403 dangers of confusing or misleading the jury.

## Legal Principles

- For wire fraud, fraudulent intent requires proof that the defendant acted with a purpose of causing actual financial harm to another.
- Mental-health expert testimony may be admissible to address specific intent, but only if it fits the mens rea element in dispute and assists the factfinder on that element.
- A subjective belief that victims will be repaid, including beliefs shaped by mental illness or religiosity, does not necessarily negate an intent to expose victims to a real risk of financial loss.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, even relevant mental-condition evidence may be excluded when its limited probative value is substantially outweighed by risks of jury confusion, unfair prejudice, or misuse as a generalized excuse for criminal conduct.

## Conclusion

The court excluded Dupre’s proposed psychological expert testimony because it did not materially negate the intent-to-defraud element as defined and carried a substantial risk of diverting the jury from the statutory mens rea inquiry, warranting exclusion under Rule 403.


United States v. Dupre, 339 F. Supp. 2d 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)