Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Hurley

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 8, 1979No. Crim. 3482Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*902HOPPER, J.

I concur in part and respectfully dissent in part.

I agree that under the circumstances the trial court did not err in denying Hurley’s motion to appoint an expert. The grounds for the motion were inadequate. Under proper circumstances with an adequate foundation (which I believe might have been developed here) an expert should be appointed. (See Katz & Reid, Expert Testimony on the Fallibility of Eyewitness Identification (1977) 1 Crim. Just. J. 177; Note, Did your Eyes Deceive you? Expert Psychological Testimony on the Unreliability of Eyewitness Identification (1977) 29 Stan. L.…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  4. United States v. Melvin TelfaireCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
  5. People v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1973

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API