Document Type
Article
Media Type
Text
Abstract
Eyewitness testimony experts are called to testify during criminal trials to explain the unreliability of eyewitness identifications. These experts describe to the jury how human memory works and try to create some doubt in the eyewitness's testimony. But are these experts really necessary when other methods can be used to create doubt in eyewitness testimony? This Comment discusses why eyewitness testimony experts should not be allowed to testify and the admissibility of eyewitness testimony experts throughout the country, primarily focusing on Illinois. This Comment also mentions New Jersey v. Henderson, which discusses the adoption of expansive jury instructions for eyewitness testimony. Ultimately, this Comment encourages Illinois to implement jury instructions similar to New Jersey instead of allowing eyewitness testimony experts to testify.
First Page
175
Last Page
201
Publication Date
9-1-2016
Department
College of Law
ISSN
0734-1490
Language
eng
Publisher
Northern Illinois University Law Review
Recommended Citation
McKay, Kelly
(2016)
"Educating a Jury on Eyewitness Testimony: Using Jury Instructions is a Better Approach than Expert Testimony,"
Northern Illinois University Law Review: Vol. 37:
Iss.
1, Article 2.
Suggested Citation
Kelly McKay, Comment, Educating a Jury on Eyewitness Testimony: Using Jury Instructions is a Better Approach than Expert Testimony, 37 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 175 (2016).
