Commonwealth v. Santoli
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtWilkins, C.J.
We granted the defendant’s application for *838direct appellate review to consider his request that we change this court’s position on the admissibility of expert testimony concerning the capacity of eyewitnesses to make reliable identifications in particular circumstances.
In Commonwealth v. Francis, 390 Mass. 89, 98-101 (1983), this court held that, although expert testimony on the capacity of eyewitnesses to make identifications is not admissible as of right, such testimony is admissible in the trial judge’s discretion. We recently reaffirmed that principle in Commonwealth v. Hyatt, 419 Mass.…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States v. John W. DowningCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- State v. ChappleArizona Supreme Court · 1983
- People v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Commonwealth v. LaniganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by66 opinions
- Commonwealth v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Brodes v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2005
- People v. SánchezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- Commonwealth v. CruzMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2005
- Commonwealth v. GomesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2015
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.