Quick Summary
Brady Guilbert (defendant) was convicted for shootings at a bar and in a vehicle that resulted in two deaths and one injury. The case revolved around whether expert testimony on eyewitness identification under stress should have been admitted.
The defense argued that excluding the testimony was an error, while the state maintained that jurors’ common knowledge made it unnecessary. The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the lower court’s judgment but recognized the value of such expert testimony for future cases.
Facts of the Case
On the night of October 8, 2004, a shooting occurred at Ernie’s Cafe, a bar in New London, where William Robinson was injured. Subsequently, Cedric Williams (deceased) and Terry Ross (deceased) were found shot in a car, with evidence linking the gun used to the bar shooting. Brady Guilbert (defendant) was identified as the shooter by Robinson and other witnesses, although identifications were made under stressful conditions and were later challenged for reliability.
The case centered around the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification, particularly under stress. The trial court precluded the testimony of Dr. Charles A. Morgan III, an expert proposed by the defense, based on previous Connecticut rulings suggesting that such testimony was unnecessary due to jurors’ presumed awareness of the factors affecting eyewitness reliability.
Procedural History
- Brady Guilbert was charged with capital felony, two counts of murder, and assault in the first degree.
- During the trial, the defense sought to introduce expert testimony from Dr. Charles A. Morgan III regarding the fallibility of eyewitness identifications under stress.
- The trial court precluded this expert testimony, referencing State v. Kemp and State v. McClendon, which stated jurors are commonly aware of factors affecting eyewitness identification reliability.
- Guilbert was convicted of all charges and sentenced to life imprisonment without release, plus twenty years.
- Guilbert appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, challenging the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on the fallibility of eyewitness identifications under stress.
Rule of Law
Expert testimony is admissible when the witness has specialized knowledge not common to the average person that would aid the court or jury in considering the issues.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that previous cases such as State v. Kemp and State v. McClendon should be overruled, acknowledging that expert testimony on eyewitness identification could be helpful to juries. The court recognized that factors such as stress can impair memory encoding and storage, potentially leading to inaccurate identifications.
Despite this acknowledgment, the court also concluded that excluding Dr. Morgan’s testimony was harmless due to other corroborating evidence presented during trial and comprehensive jury instructions provided by the trial court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgments of the trial court but recognized the potential value of expert testimony on eyewitness identification in future cases.
Concurring Opinions
The concurring opinion agreed with the majority that the trial court’s error was harmless but emphasized that strong corroborating evidence and comprehensive jury instructions justified excluding expert testimony under a totality of circumstances analysis.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut overruled previous cases that held jurors’ common knowledge as sufficient for understanding eyewitness identification reliability.
- Expert testimony on eyewitness identification is considered admissible if it can aid jurors in evaluating evidence.
- In this case, excluding expert testimony was deemed harmless due to corroborating evidence and detailed jury instructions.
Relevant FAQs of this case
References
Was this case brief helpful?