People v. Lerma

Facts

D was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated discharge of a firearm, and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. Gill and Clark were on Gill’s front porch when D, aka Lucky, approached and shot at Gill and Clark. Clark dragged Gill into the house. Gill in the presence of Clark, and his father, Bill Johnson, who came onto the scene after hearing gunshots and Clark's screaming, stated that 'Lucky' shot him. Gill and Clark are African-American while D is Hispanic. D filed a motion in limine to allow a licensed psychologist and attorney, Dr. Solomon Fulero, to testify as an expert witness on memory and eyewitness identification. D claims that jurors rely on many of the misconceptions of memory and eyewitness identification that Dr. Fulero would address. D alleged that cross-examination of eyewitness testimony would appear insignificant to jurors due to their common misperceptions and lack of knowledge regarding memory and eyewitness identification. Dr. Fulero was going to illustrate common misconceptions about eyewitness identifications: the confidence of the witness does not relate to accuracy; the reliability of an identification is reduced by stress or the presence of a weapon; the overestimation of time frames by an eyewitness; cross-racial identification problems; the forgetting curve and the effect of time on the reliability of an identification; the impact of partial disguises, such as a hood, on identification; 'the effect of postevent information'; the problems associated with night time identification; and that multiple witness identifications and dying declaration identifications are not necessarily more reliable. Dr. Fulero would also testify that the accuracy of eyewitness identifications could be reduced by police procedures utilized in this case. Dr. Fulero would have also addressed how common misconceptions of memory are in conflict with the theory of memory as generally accepted in the field of psychology. Dr. Fulero would also testify that a dying witness's physical condition could contribute to a lie or mistake; the dying witness's account may be truncated, incomplete, or one-sided due to the limited time to communicate; that, depending on the witness, such a witness may lie or exact revenge; and that the listener may miscomprehend the statement from a dying witness. P considered Dr. Fulero's testimony as within the common knowledge of the jury and would not aid it. It claimed cross-examination, closing argument, and jury instructions were all that was needed. Also, the victim knew D and identified him to the police by name, a fact Dr. Fulero failed to consider. P also presented that Clark was the only eyewitness to the murder and knew D's nickname to be 'Lucky.' Dr. Fulero testified, in an unrelated case in Ohio, that the factors that lead to unreliable eyewitness identification were not applicable when the eyewitness knew the suspect. The court denied D's motion to allow expert witness testimony on eyewitness identification. Prior to trial, Dr. Fulero passed away. D sought a continuance to seek a new expert witness to be used as an offer of proof, which the circuit court denied. D secured Dr. Geoffrey Loftus and again renewed the motion halfway through the trial. Dr. Loftus reviewed police reports, witness statements and interviews, photo montages, lineup photos, and transcripts from court hearings in developing his current proffer. He would discuss the general theory of perception and memory and how scientific evidence addressing the following topics related to eyewitness testimony: circumstances where memory fails; effects of low lighting; effects of distance on visual perception; effects of divided attention, including weapons focus; time durations and how people overestimate time durations in stressful or eventful circumstances; effects of cross-racial identification; effects of stress; consequences of a person's face being partially obscured; effects of expectations; consequences of nonindependent identifications; effects of suggestive postevent information; and the effect of the confidence of an eyewitness. Dr. Loftus anticipated discussing the implications of an eyewitness being acquainted with the identified person and how it is possible to make a mistaken identification. The court again denied the motion. Kurt Zielinski, a forensic scientist with the Police, admitted on cross-examination that he did not find any physical evidence linking Dt to the shooting. Similarly, Detective James Las Cola, who reported to the scene shortly after the shooting, testified that he did not find any firearm evidence on the scene. The moon was not visible in the sky and the shooter, Lucky, was wearing a dark hoodie. D was convicted and appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.