Commonwealth v. Alicia
625 Pa. 429
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Appellee Jose Alicia was arrested on Nov 1, 2005 for murder and related offenses in a cafe shooting.
- Evidence showed Alicia and friends faced off against other individuals; a bystander was killed.
- Alicia confessed at the end of a six-hour police interview; other witnesses implicated different shooters.
- In May 2007 Alicia moved to admit a false confesssions expert; claimed his IQ and coercion risks supported testimony.
- In June 2007 the Commonwealth sought to exclude such testimony and a Frye hearing; argued it would mislead jurors.
- In June 2008 the trial court allowed general testimony about false confessions but barred case-specific conclusions; Superior Court affirmed; Commonwealth sought Supreme Court review on whether such expert testimony invades the jury’s credibility role.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does expert testimony on false confessions invade the jury’s credibility role? | Commonwealth argues it educates jurors and aids understanding. | Alicia argues it would invade credibility and usurp juror function. | No; such testimony intrudes on the jury’s exclusive role. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 518 Pa. 77, 541 A.2d 315 (1988) (Pa. 1988) (credibility is for the jury; expert’s reliance on credibility is improper)
- Commonwealth v. Balodis, 560 Pa. 567, 747 A.2d 341 (2000) (Pa. 2000) (witness credibility reserved to jury; expert testimony on credibility improper)
- Commonwealth v. O'Searo, 466 Pa. 224, 352 A.2d 30 (1976) (Pa. 1976) (psychological testimony to assess credibility rejected)
- Commonwealth v. Dunkle, 529 Pa. 168, 602 A.2d 830 (1992) (Pa. 1992) (reasons why child victims don’t report are within jurors’ experience; expert on credibility improper)
- Commonwealth v. Seese, 512 Pa. 439, 517 A.2d 920 (1986) (Pa. 1986) (admission of expert on credibility of child sexual abuse victims rejected)
- Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 519 Pa. 291, 547 A.2d 355 (1988) (Pa. 1988) (rape trauma syndrome testimony improper to bolster credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Crawford, 553 Pa. 195, 718 A.2d 768 (1998) (Pa. 1998) (rejected expert testimony aimed at reliability of eyewitness testimony when used to attack credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Spence, 534 Pa. 233, 627 A.2d 1176 (1993) (Pa. 1993) (upholding exclusion of psychologist’s testimony on effects of stress on identification)
- Commonwealth v. Simmons, 541 Pa. 211, 662 A.2d 621 (1995) (Pa. 1995) (reliability of eyewitness identification cannot be testified to by experts)
- Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam, 544 Pa. 514, 678 A.2d 342 (1996) (Pa. 1996) (denying funding for psychology of eyewitness identification testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, — Pa. —, 92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014) (Pa. 2014) (recognizes admissibility of eyewitness identification expert testimony; used for comparison)