The Illinois Court of Appeals overturned a conviction Friday in People v. Allen (PDF) (update: now on Westlaw at 2007 WL 2821966), for the trial court's "failure to conduct a meaningful inquiry" into proposed expert testimony on eyewitness factors by Dr. Steven Penrod.
Subjects of proffered testimony were to include the effects of stress, weapon focus, cross-race, lack of correlation between witness confidence and accuracy, and police procedures. The appellate court's analysis of those factors is imperfect (for example, the court found that cross-race research would not have applied because the witness was married to an African American, which the research shows to be largely irrelevant).
Nonetheless, the Illinois court was concerned with the fact that the prosecutor had argued effects that conflict with research findings:
The State's comments: "[t]here is no higher degree of attention than someone pointing a gun at you;" "[defendant's] face is burned in her memory forever;" " [tlhere is no doubt she was certain;" and "if she is so certain, there is no reason and no doubt that you should be certain."
That doesn't stop our courts from excluding the same research on the same grounds, but I digress. The court didn't go as far as to say that it was error to exclude the expert testimony, but citing Illinois case law, found that it was error to fail to provide a reasoned basis for its exclusion.
Neither at trial nor in this appeal does the State challenge the reliability of the research cited by Dr. Penrod. Nor did the trial court when it rejected the proposed testimony. The court merely said it did not believe: "experts in this particular case will assist the jury in determining the identification in
this case. I believe it would probably confuse them more and I believe that the
instruction that's provided by the Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions is sufficient."
The appellate court also made some affirmative findings on the question of whether the research is common sense/not beyond the ken, which is helpful in light of the fact that courts most often rely on the claim, however unsupported, that these factors are common sense such that expert testimony would not be helpful. Quoting from another Illinois case:
The research challenges the claim that the jury does not require expert assistance. As the prosecutor understood, reasonable people well might believe an eyewitness will be more accurate when faced with a weapon and when the witness shows
confidence in the accuracy of her identification. The expert testimony "dispels myths or attacks commonsense misconceptions about eyewitness identifications, such as the effects of stress and weapon focus on the accuracy of identifications." Tisdell,
338 Ill. App. 3d at 467. In Tisdell I we said: "Numerous studies in the area of eyewitness psychology indicate there is a significant potential for eyewitness error and that jurors have misconceptions about the abilities of eyewitnesses." Tisdell, 316 Ill. App. 3d at 1157.
In other words, there is something wrong with excluding expert testimony on weapon focus and stress on the grounds that their effects are common sense, but nonetheless allowing prosecutors to argue the opposite of the common sense view, as they do in trial after trial.
Further, the court observed that:
No careful scrutiny took place in this case. Relevance of the different parts of Dr. Penrod's proposed testimony was not seriously considered. Nor their weight. The conclusion that the proposed testimony would confuse the jury had no considered basis. The balancing test requires a weighing of "probative value against its prejudicial effect.".
In other words, this presumably means that hard data will be required in support of future attempts to exclude expert testimony on common sense grounds. Fortunately, all the hard evidence (PDF) is firmly in favor of defendants seeking to get expert testimony in front of jurors.
Finally,
Because of the trial court's failure to conduct a meaningful inquiry into Dr. Penrod's proposed testimony, under the specific circumstances of this case, we reverse the defendant's convictions and remand this cause for a new trial.
The court could have taken it a step further and held that it was error to exclude the testimony, and further that it was error to allow the prosecutor to make arguments that conflict with what the court held to be common sense, but it's a start.
UPDATE: This case is now available on Westlaw: People v. Allen, --- N.E.2d ----, 2007 WL 2821966 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2007).
No comments:
Post a Comment