Legal Opinion

People v. Allen

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided September 28, 2007No. 1-06-1943PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Wolfson

Social scientists have been conducting research into the ability of one human being to identify another. Whether such an expert should be allowed to testify in a criminal case is a matter of broad discretion for the trial court. In light of the specific circumstances of this case, we hold reversible error was committed when the trial court refused to allow an expert to testify. We reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.

This was a jury trial. The defendant, Walter Allen, was convicted of attempted murder, attempted armed robbery, and aggravated battery with a firearm. He…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. United States v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. New York v. BeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. United States v. John W. DowningCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Commonwealth v. SimonsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  3. People v. RodriguezAppellate Court of Illinois · 2008
  4. State of West Virginia v. Rashaun R. Boyd and Christopher R. WycheWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2017
  5. People v. McGheeAppellate Court of Illinois · 2012

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API