Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Jurors; Eyewitness Identification Evidence; Judges; Expert Testimony; Judicial Discretion; New York; Accomplice Testimony; Wise And Safer Study; Legrand Test; People V. Mccullough; Corroborating Evidence; Corroboration; Wrongful Conviction
Articles 1 - 1 of 1
Full-Text Articles in Law
Narrowing The Legrand Test In New York State: A Necessary Limit On Judicial Discretion, Katherine I. Higginbotham
Narrowing The Legrand Test In New York State: A Necessary Limit On Judicial Discretion, Katherine I. Higginbotham
Brooklyn Law Review
The admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification evidence is an effective means of ensuring that juries and judges will weigh eyewitness identification evidence appropriately. The fallibility of such evidence is an increasingly well-researched and documented phenomenon in criminal law. Despite publicity of the frequency with which eyewitness identification evidence leads to wrongful convictions, studies show that jurors are often unable to properly assess the probative value of such testimony. Judges are also often unfamiliar with the factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. A 2016 Court of Appeals of New York case, People v. McCullough, represented a …