Interesting, Important Split on Admissibility of Expert Testimony about Science of Eyewitness Testimony

This is not so much a statutory interpretation case, but it is really interesting.  The judge notes that it is settled that there is a "vast lacuna" between how much weight jurors give eyewitness testimony, and how much science shows it is entitled too but, even so, courts split on admitting expert testimony on its unreliability.  US v. Smith is the case, available here.  The judge notes that older case law often excluded it, but "as the body of evidence has grown" showing it is unreliable, some judges are coming out the other way, and a split exists.

(Among other things, it demonstrates-- aghast -- that judges do make policy and law.  Even in Alabama, Senator Sessions, even in Alabama!  Perhaps we should get these wild liberal Alabama activist judges impeached forthwith!  Yes, I'm sick of this "judges don't make law" thing. Judges make law every day -- every day -- and they must.  Let's stop the charade!)