United States v. Michael R. Moore, Larry P. Moore and Beverly K. Moore

How courts have described this case

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

• noting conclusions of psychological studies serve to “‘explode common myths about an individual’s capacity for perception’”
• upholding the district court’s exclusion of eyewitness identification expert testimony while recognizing that admission would be proper in some cases
• “We emphasize that in a case in which the sole testimony is casual eyewitness identification, expert testimony regarding the accuracy of that identification is admissible and properly may be encouraged.”
• no error in denying instruction regarding witness’s psychiatric condition when judge gave jury general credibility instruction
• “This court accepts the modern conclusion that the admission of expert testimony regarding eyewitness identifications is proper, and we have no prior contrary authority which binds us. We cannot say such scientific data is inadequate or contradictory”
• “In some cases casual eyewitness testimony may make 11 Jennifer L. Devenport & Steven D. Penrod, Eyewitness Identification Evidence: Evaluating Commonsense Evaluations, 3 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 338, 348 (1997

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).