People v. Lerma
2016 IL 118496
| Ill. | 2016Background
- Victim Jason Gill was shot to death; the State’s case rested solely on two eyewitness identifications (Gill’s excited-utterance and Lydia Clark’s testimony/photo ID/show-up).
- Clark’s testimony was inconsistent about how well she knew defendant: trial testimony said she had seen him from across the street up to ~10 times; grand-jury testimony said once or twice; she also testified she had never spoken with or been in the same room/house as him and said, "I did not know him." Defendant is Hispanic; Clark is African-American.
- Defense sought to admit expert testimony on eyewitness reliability (initially Dr. Fulero; later Dr. Geoffrey Loftus). Reports identified well‑documented factors undermining identification accuracy (stress, weapon focus, low light, suggestive procedures, cross‑race issues, confidence unreliability, acquaintance misidentification potential).
- Trial court excluded both experts, reasoning acquaintance identifications are common‑knowledge reliable and that expert testimony risked usurping credibility; it relied in part on an Ohio decision summarizing prior expert testimony.
- Appellate court reversed, concluding the trial court failed to scrutinize Loftus’s report and improperly rested exclusion on personal beliefs; Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, holding exclusion was an abuse of discretion and not harmless error, and remanded for new trial permitting expert testimony under Rule 702.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Lerma) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony on eyewitness identification reliability | Expert testimony unnecessary because acquaintance IDs are commonly understood to be more reliable; proffered studies apply mainly to stranger IDs and thus are not relevant and risk usurping witness credibility | Expert testimony was necessary: the State’s case depended entirely on IDs; proffered expert (Loftus) directly addressed acquaintance misidentification and would not opine on credibility; many reliability factors were present | Court held exclusion was an abuse of discretion and not harmless; new trial ordered with expert testimony admissible under Rule 702 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Enis, 139 Ill. 2d 264 (1990) (sets standards for admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identification)
- People v. Cloutier, 156 Ill. 2d 483 (1993) (expert testimony required when subject beyond common knowledge and will aid jury)
- People v. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215 (2010) (expert testimony on matters of common knowledge is inadmissible absent difficulty in understanding)
- People v. Blue, 205 Ill. 2d 1 (2001) (tests for determining whether evidentiary error is harmless)