State v. Wetherbee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, when an expert comments directly on witness credibility, it invades the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses and creates a risk that the expert will be seen as a “truth detector”
• explaining that hearing the testimony of a psychological expert, who could be perceived as a “truth detector,” posed greater danger of prejudice to the jury than hearing testimony of a medical doctor focused primarily on physical treatment
• noting that, when an expert comments directly on witness credibility, it invades the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses and creates a risk that the expert will be seen as a “truth detector”
• comments of expert who has examined the victim are taken in an entirely different light by the jury
• allowance of an expert’s testimony related to victim’s credibility is especially prejudicial because “the average juror believes that psychologists are specially trained to ferret out truth”
• mental health professional who has examined the victim and then testifies as the State’s expert at trial may be perceived by jury as vouching for victim’s credibility

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).