Opinion ID: 2022344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sentence of the Charge in Isolation

Text: The trial court apparently wished to communicate to the jury that it could not accept or reject the proffered eyewitness identifications based solely on expert testimony that the accuracy of such identifications may be influenced by a variety of psychological factors, but was instead required to render its own judgment. However, the words the court chose to express that thought were ill advised. Read in isolation, the sentence instructing that Dr. Loftus's testimony could not be used to discredit or accredit the reliability of eyewitness testimony in general or in this case was incorrect. Indeed, it might be taken to mean that the expert testimony the court had admitted could not in the end be considered for any purpose at all. Inasmuch as the court had specifically precluded Dr. Loftus from giv[ing] opinion testimony regarding the credibility or reliability of any witness . . . or opin[ing] as to whether any of the specific psychological factors outlined above actually influenced the identifications (188 Misc 2d at 215), there was no real danger here that the jurors would simply adopt the expert's opinion as to the reliability of these particular identifications. After all, the expert had never rendered one. Rather, she had, consistent with the court's ruling, merely set[] forth the relevant psychological factors and interpret[ed] the research data that demonstrate an effect on memory and perception. ( Id. ) Of course, jurors remain always free to accept or reject expert evidence in the first instance, and the jury here was properly so instructed: The opinion of an expert witness is subject to the same tests concerning reliability and credibility as the testimony of any other witness. It is up to you as the triers of fact to determine whether to accept or reject an expert's opinion. Given to assist you in reaching a proper conclusion, expert testimony is entitled to such weight as you find the expert's qualifications in his or her field warrant and it may be considered by you, but it's not controlling on your judgment. Where there has been expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identifications, jurors must, if they choose to accept that testimony, be permitted to apply the identified psychological factors to the facts of the case before them in deciding whether they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the proffered identifications. Indeed, that is the only conceivable purpose of such testimony. Courts should therefore instruct jurors that if they accept the expert's testimony, they may consider it along with all the other evidence in the case in determining whether the People have proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.