Court Opinion

ID: 9535004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:44:36.548316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:09.251918
License: Public Domain

*321CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The rule approved by a majority of this court in State v. Galloway, 275 N.W.2d 736 (Iowa 1979), excluding expert testimony concerning the reliability of eyewitness identification was sound and should not now be abandoned.
One of the reasons expressed by this court’s majority for excluding such evidence was:
Explanation of the scientifically identified mechanisms which bring about memory decay may be of academic interest, but it is of little aid to the jury in judging reliability of the particular eye witness identification before them....
Galloway, 275 N.W.2d at 741. The Galloway majority also expressed the view that the subject of such opinions is not beyond the knowledge and experience of the typical trial juror. Id.
These observations are valid grounds for excluding this category of expert testimony irrespective of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. I would affirm the district court.
MeGIVERIN, C.J., joins this dissent.