Court Opinion

ID: 9729518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:39:06.178928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:59.191316
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in result. I would have preferred that the trial court make a finding as to the degree Mr. Vanes participated in the defendant's first trial. There is a conflict between the prosecutor’s version and the description by Mr. Vanes. Certainly, the whole situation appears to be on the edge of impropriety. Since we do not reweigh the evidence and there is evidence to support the trial court’s decision to allow Mr. Vanes to represent the defendant, I feel constrained to concur in result.
I also concur in result as to the second issue. In the case at hand the evidence of the expert witness regarding reconstructive memory was properly admitted. However, the reliability of reconstructive memory is still unsettled. The admissibility of such testimony when adequately challenged is not settled today.