A new type of expert witness may soon be in demand in the courtroom, at least in Illinois. A recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling came down in favor of allowing expert testimony that challenges the reliability of eyewitnesses. “We not only have seen that eyewitness identifications are not always as reliable as they appear, but we also have learned, from a scientific standpoint, why this is often the case,” the justices wrote in their ruling. “Today we are able to recognize that such research is well settled, well supported, and in appropriate cases a perfectly proper subject for expert testimony.”
Who’s qualified to share that research? Several Illinois cases have relied on Geoffrey Loftus, a researcher in sensory perception and memory at the University of Washington in Seattle. Loftus’ testimony, according to the Chicago Tribune, played a significant role in the acquittal of a man accused of double murder. He had been called upon in a previous trial as well, in which eyewitness accounts were also in question, but his testimony was excluded prior to the Supreme Court’s decision. That case is now being retried to allow expert testimony on eyewitness identification.
Looks like neurologists, psychiatrists, and other experts of the brain may soon have a new source of income.
This is an interesting application of expert witnesses. Experts are now being asked to weigh in not only on their educated interpretation of a case’s specific circumstances, but on the reliability of other evidence. In a sense, it sets the expert back a step from the proceedings. A researcher in the fallibility of human memory is not adding new evidence to a case, as much as commenting on the judge or jury’s ability to trust what others are telling them. It feels a bit “meta” for comfort.
That being said, I don’t disagree with the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling. I respect that they challenged a long-held assumption that such testimony was not relevant, and reexamined it in light of new and evolving science. Casting doubt on all eyewitness testimony certainly opens the door to more debate, discussion, and deliberation. It has the potential to be misused, or become an overused gimmick. But like all expert witnesses, the right person in the right context may also offer invaluable insight that leads to the right decision.