OLR Report 2012-R-0415 summarizes the Connecticut Supreme Court decision allowing experts to testify about factors that may affect the reliability of eyewitness identifications (State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218, 2012 WL 3629569, September 4, 2012).
In State v. Guilbert, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that experts could testify about the fallibility of eyewitness identifications in appropriate cases. The existing rule generally prohibited its use because (1) the average juror was already familiar with the factors that affected the reliability of eyewitness identifications and (2) it impermissibly interfered with the jury's fact-finding role.
Guilbert involved a criminal defendant's claim that five eyewitnesses misidentified him. The trial court applied the existing rule and denied defense counsel's request to present scientific testimony pinpointing factors known to adversely affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.
The strength of the scientific findings and bases for other courts rulings allowed the court to reach conclusions on the admissibility of evidence concerning a number of factors.
For more information, including a summary of the majority opinion, read the full report.
