People v. Abney
New York Court of Appeals
918 N.E.2d 486, 13 N.Y.3d 251 (2009), 31 Misc.3d 1231(A), 932 N.Y.S.2d 762 (2011)
- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Defendants in two cases were not permitted to have an expert testify regarding the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony. In Abney, a 13-year-old girl was robbed at knifepoint, and the case hinged on her identification of the assailant because there was no supporting evidence linking Quentin Abney (defendant) to the crime. After the state (plaintiff) presented its case, Abney sought to introduce expert testimony regarding witness confidence, event stress, cross-racial identification, and the like. The judge denied the motion, and Abney was convicted. In Allen, two victims of a robbery by masked perpetrators at a barbershop identified Gregory Allen (defendant), who was known in the neighborhood, and there was supporting evidence that he was the perpetrator. The first victim selected Allen’s picture from a book of mug shots and from a small group of photographs. Later, a second eyewitness selected Allen’s picture from the same group of photographs. Allen moved to have an expert testify regarding factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, such as unconscious transference and weapon focus. The judge denied the motion, and Allen was convicted. Both Abney and Allen appealed, and the appellate court affirmed in both cases. The defendants in both cases asked the New York Court of Appeals to determine whether the trial courts had abused their discretion in not allowing the expert testimony regarding the trustworthiness of eyewitness identifications.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Read, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
