Frye Not?
Criminal defense practitioners take note of People v LeGrand, 2007 NY Slip Op 02588, a decision handed down by the New York Court of Appeals today. The Court ruled on the relevancy of expert testimony regarding the reliability of eyewitness identifications.
The Court held that:
(W)here the case turns on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and there is little or no corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to exclude expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identifications if that testimony is (1) relevant to the witness's identification of defendant, (2) based on principles that are generally accepted within the relevant scientific community, (3) proffered by a qualified expert and (4) on a topic beyond the ken of the average juror.
After applying this standard to Mr. LeGrand's case, the Court concluded that the trial court erred when it precluded the eyewitness testimony of the defendant's expert in its entirety. The defendant's murder conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered.
How about that?
Wow! That is huge. Eyewitness testimony is one of the worst dangers to the wrongful conviction of the innocent possible, and this opens the door to a meaningful challenge by the defense to this junk evidence. Great find, Nicole!
Posted by: Scott Greenfield | March 27, 2007 at 07:27 PM