May 31, 2009
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.
May 31, 2009 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Interesting, Important Split on Admissibility of Expert Testimony about Science of Eyewitness Testimony: