Expert testimony about whether a murder confession was coerced is not warranted where the subject matter is within the understanding of most jurors, the state Supreme Court says.
While leaving the door open to expert testimony about confessions under different circumstances, the Court said the trial judge correctly found that the proposed testimony — that the defendant confessed because he was frightened by police threats that he would get the electric chair if he did not — did not offer any more insight than the average juror would possess.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
