Painter v. Butler

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that although jurors “are not fully aware of the factors that influence eyewitness testimony,” “[cjertain factors that can influence an eyewitnesses’ observation and recall are familiar to lay persons [including] cross-racial identifications” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that a jury may “automatically infer that an honest profession of certainty ends the inquiry into witness reliability”
• observing that the trial court “came dangerously close to employing a per se rule of exclusion”
• acknowledging that we may affirm even where a trial court fails to exercise its discretion properly if the court, “as a matter of law, had ‘but one option’” (quoting Ibn-Tamas, 407 A.2d at 635)
• noting that “jurors, as a matter of common sense, are not fully aware of the factors that influence eyewitness testimony,” and that research has disproved commonly held beliefs in the accuracy of eyewitness identifications
• noting that a trial judge may \place reasonable limitations” on expert testimony such as prohibiting \the introduction of ultimate conclusions by an expert witness as to the truthfulness of a witness ... and the guilt of the defendant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).