Scientific and expert findings are admissible only if they are supported by sufficient data.

Cf. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, pin? (1987) (held, trial court violated homicide defendant's constitutional rights by barring her from testifying about the circumstances of the killing on the ground that....The Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants a criminal defendant the right to introduce exculpatory evidence that is probative of and relevant to a material issue.

Fed. R. Evid. 403 ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.").The trial court may exclude relevant evidence if the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Ardolino v. Warden, 223 F. Supp. 2d 215, pin? (D. Me. 2002) (battered child syndrome; "In any event, Ardolino's premise that battered child syndrome evidence is unreliable (and thus violated his right to due process) appears to be based on a mischaracterization of the evidence...In some circumstances and for some purposes battered child syndrome evidence is sufficiently reliable to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or comparable State rules for the admissibility of expert evidence.