Two of the most hotly contested issues in American justicemay converge in the Unabomber trial of Theodore Kaczynski,says UC Davis law professor Edward Imwinkelried: theadmissibility of uncharged acts and of scientific evidence.Both types of testimony can be very convincing to jurors, sodefense attorneys and prosecutors usually make strenuousarguments for their positions. (The statute governing theadmissibility of uncharged acts, Federal Evidence Rule404(b), generates more published opinions than any otherevidentiary issue.)Federal defenders have indicated they plan to introduceexpert psychiatric testimony that Kaczynski suffers fromparanoid schizophrenia, and that his mental illness rendershim unable to form the intent to commit murder. To challengesuch testimony, the prosecution might ask the judge'spermission to introduce evidence about actions by Kaczynskithat show his ability to reason and calculate, Imwinkelriedsays.Imwinkelried is author of "Uncharged Misconduct Evidence"(1984), the only American treatise on uncharged misconduct,and the co-author of "Scientific Evidence" (2d ed. 1993), oneof the leading treatises on scientific evidence.