in the Interest of J. S., a Child

How courts have described this case

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

• decision not to seek funds for expert on eyewitness identification not manifestly unreasonable where * reliability of identification challenged on cross-examination and in closing argument
• “[Ejxpert testimony concerning the reliability of eyewitness identification is not admissible as of right, but is left to the discretion of the trial judge”
• judge’s eyewitness instructions in accordance with Rodriguez and Commonwealth v. Pressley, 390 Mass. 617, 619 [1983], given at defendant’s request, sufficient without “cautionary” instructions
• admission of eyewitness identification expert testimony “is not admissible as of right, but is left to the discretion of the trial judge”
• where there was additional evidence to corroborate eyewitness identification, exclusion of expert testimony does not require new trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).