Court Opinion

ID: 9626872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:26:11.895976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:35.271316
License: Public Domain

COATS, Judge,
dissenting.
This case turns on identification of the defendant by a single eyewitness. I concur that appropriate expert testimony might have been of use in this case. However, the expert witness, Dr. Robert Madigan, conceded that his testimony was based upon studies in which people from the academic community were shown pictures and were then later tested on how well they remembered the pictures. He conceded that a situation where a person was subjected to an attempted rape would be very different. In short, Dr. Madigan never appeared to make a significant connection between the eye witness problems presented in this case and the studies about which he testified. Thus, I am not convinced that Dr. Madigan’s testimony would have “assist[ed] the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in is-sue_” A.R.E. 702. On this basis, I conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding Dr. Madigan’s testimony. I therefore dissent on this issue.