Ina pair of 6-0 rulings yesterday, the Court of Appeals fleshed out the meaning of a precedent it set in 2007 requiring the admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identifications when there is “little or no” evidence—aside from witnesses’ recollections—tying a suspect to a crime.
In a case from the Appellate Division, First Department, the Court found evidence—produced by the defense itself in attempting to establish an alibi—too “muddled” to provide sufficient corroboration to justify a judge’s decision precluding expert testimony.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
