Texas Wesleyan Law Review
The Unfortunate Faith: A Solution to the Unwarranted Reliance Upon Eyewitness Testimony
The purpose of this Comment is to argue for the mandatory admission of expert testimony on eyewitness testimony in criminal trials with a jury as the finder of fact. Juries have a preference for direct testimonial evidence."8 But, the impact of direct eyewitness testimony is often misleading to jurors. The rule of law allows eyewitness testimony in most cases but does not require expert testimony to illuminate it. 9 This idea requires a change in the Federal Rules of Evidence. The nondiscretionary admission of expert witness testimony will aid the jury when the accuracy of eyewitness testimony is the pivotal proof. Part I chronicles historical mistaken identification cases that exemplify major failures in the criminal justice system. Part II presents the unique reasons why eyewitness testimony creates the need for special expert testimony. Part III analyzes the current state of the law in Texas, allowing admission of expert testimony on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Part IV argues for the proposed solution to unreliable eyewitness testimony and the jury's unreasonable dependence upon it. The Conclusion explains why the recommended change in the law is prudent and necessary for the cause of justice.
William D. Gross,
The Unfortunate Faith: A Solution to the Unwarranted Reliance Upon Eyewitness Testimony,
Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.37419/TWLR.V5.I2.7