Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 5/28/2014

Commonwealth v. Walker

Citations

92 A.3d 766
625 Pa. 450
2014 WL 2208139
2014 Pa. LEXIS 1358

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that “expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification in these circumstances could be probative and beneficial to the jury”
holding that expert testimony as to general eyewitness identifications is no longer per se inadmissible as an abridgement of the jury's credibility -determining function
recognizing that eyewitness identifications are “widely considered to be one of the least reliable forms of evidence” (citing United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228 (1967))
recognizing that eyewitness identifications are “widely considered to be one of the least reliable forms of evidence” (citing United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228 (1967))
stating that “expert testimony must be beyond the knowledge possessed by a layperson and assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.”
stating that “expert testimony must be beyond the knowledge possessed by a layperson and assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Melvin, Saylor, Todd

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

98 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.