People v. Lee
People v. Lee is a notable court case that examines the complexities of eyewitness testimony and the role of expert witnesses in criminal trials. The case centers on the theft of a vehicle at gunpoint, wherein the defendant was identified by the victim through both a photo array and a lineup, several months after the incident. The defense sought to introduce expert testimony to challenge the reliability of the victim's identification, arguing that various psychological factors can influence memory and perception. However, the trial court denied this request, asserting that the jury had sufficient information to assess the witness's credibility without expert assistance.
The New York Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the judge's discretion in determining the appropriateness of expert testimony based on the trial's context, including corroborating evidence. The case highlights ongoing legal debates regarding the admissibility of expert psychological testimony in eyewitness identification, with previous rulings indicating that while such testimony can offer valuable insights, it may not always be necessary. Overall, People v. Lee serves as a critical reference point in discussions about the intersection of eyewitness reliability, expert testimony, and judicial discretion within the legal system.
On this Page
Subject Terms
People v. Lee
Date: Ruling issued on May 8, 2001
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Significance: In the case of People v. Lee, the New York Court of Appeals held that the decision regarding whether or not to admit expert testimony at trial regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification is at the discretion of the trial court judge.
The court case People v. Lee focused on eyewitness testimony and the issue of whether the defense can introduce the testimony of expert witnesses during trial to raise doubt about a witness’s reliability. The court exercised its discretion in determining that this testimony was not necessary to assist the jury in reaching a verdict. Key factors relating to the court’s decision were the lack of any taint regarding the victim’s out-of-court identification and the existence of corroborating evidence.
The case involved the theft of a motor vehicle at gunpoint, in a lighted area, where the defendant was about four feet from the victim. Two months after the theft, the defendant was arrested after committing a traffic violation; at that time, he was in possession of the victim’s vehicle. About six months after the arrest, the police presented the victim with a photo array from which he identified the defendant. Ten days later, the victim also identified the defendant in a lineup.
During a pretrial hearing, the defendant sought to introduce at trial a psychology expert who would testify regarding factors that could influence perception, memory, and the accuracy of victims’ identification of their assailants. The hearing court denied the defense motion to present this evidence at trial. After the trial began, the defendant renewed his request, and the request was again denied.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed that it is up to the discretion of the trial judge whether this type of testimony is appropriate. The appellate court indicated that the trial court is in the best position to “weigh the request against other relevant factors, such as…the existence of corroborating evidence.” The defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the victim (witness) during the trial to question and to place before the jury any facts relevant to the identification of the defendant.
In two earlier cases, the New York Court of Appeals addressed issues relating to the admissibility of expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification. In People v. Cronin (1983), the court indicated that “it is for the trial court in the first instance to determine when jurors are able to draw conclusions from the evidence based on their day-to-day experience, their common observation and their knowledge, and when they would be benefited by the specialized knowledge of an expert witness.” The decision in this case is consistent with the court’s holding in People v. Mooney (1990); however, it was the dissent that stated that “the emerging trend today is to find expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification sufficiently reliable to be admitted, and the vast majority of academic commentators have urged its acceptance.”
In a later case, People v. Young (2006), the court noted that several factors could affect an eyewitness’s identification, such as race, stress, experience, opportunity to observe, and the weapon used during commission of the crime (often, crime victims focus more closely on the weapons used against them than on the persons committing the crimes). The appellate court acknowledged that an expert witness could provide information to jurors that they may not know but determined that the court appropriately exercised its discretion to exclude the testimony of an expert witness as requested by the defense. In this case, as in People v. Lee, in addition to the victim’s identification of the defendant, corroborating evidence was presented to the jury for evaluation.
Bibliography
Brewer, Neil, and Kipling D. Williams, eds. Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. New York: Guilford Press, 2005.
Technical Working Group on Eyewitness Evidence. Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1999.
Wells, Gary L., and Elizabeth F. Loftus. “Eyewitness Memory for People and Events.” In Forensic Psychology, edited by Alan M. Goldstein. Vol. 11 in Handbook of Psychology, edited by Irving B. Weiner. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.