UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry L. HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that an officer had “substantial knowledge” about the defendant’s appearance that “the jury was unable to see”
• observing that “lay witness identifications are particularly valuable when the witness has specialized knowledge of the defendant’s appearance unavailable to the jury” (citation omitted)
• concluding, after finding police officer identification testimony admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 701, that its prejudicial value 10 exceeded its probative value because other non-police witnesses had offered identification testimony
• allowing admission of testimony where witness knew defendant for 15 years and had seen him often throughout the period
• rejecting challenge to identification of defendant in surveillance photographs by police officer who testified he had known the defendant “for approximately fifteen years and had seen him daily, weekly, or biweekly throughout that fifteen-year period”
• although prejudicial effect of officer’s opinion substantially outweighed probative -4- value and therefore was error to admit opinion under Rule 403, “error was harmless . . . because there was other reliable identification testimony identifying Henderson as the robber”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).