Tillman, Larry Joseph Jr., 354 S.W.3d 425

Tillman was charged with capital murder and found guilty by a jury; punishment was life in prison.
The court of appeals affirmed; the State sought discretionary review to challenge the exclusion of eyewitness-identification expert testimony.
Appellant proffered Dr. Roy Malpass, an eyewitness-identification expert, to discuss biasing effects of identification procedures.
The gatekeeping hearing focused on whether Malpass’s testimony was relevant and reliable under Rule 702 and Nenno.
The trial court excluded Malpass’s testimony, finding insufficient foundation and concerns about credibility and relevance.
The Court holds that Malpass’s testimony was reliable, relevant, and properly fit to the facts, reversing and remanding for harm analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Malpass’s testimony admissible under Rule 702?	Tillman: testimony is relevant and reliable under Nenno.	State: testimony lacks relevance and ties to facts; insufficient foundation.	Yes; trial court abused discretion; Malpass testimony admissible.
Did Malpass’s testimony fit the facts of the case to be helpful to the jury?	Tillman: hypotheticals mirror case facts; fits under Jordan.	State: testimony lacked case-specific grounding.	Yes; testimony sufficiently tied to the facts and helped the jury.
Is Malpass’s reliability established by the relevant scientific standards for eyewitness identification?	Tillman: field is legitimate; numerous studies support bias in identifications.	State: Malpass provided generic testimony; insufficient cited authority.	Yes; testimony based on legitimate field with sufficient support and methodology.

Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (soft science reliability framework for eyewitness testimony)
Jordan v. State, 928 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (fit and helpfulness of expert testimony to eyewitness reliability)
Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (reliability factors for expert testimony in Kelly framework)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (fit/reliability Daubert framework for expert evidence)
Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (reliability concerns when expert testimony lacks specific principles)
Rousseau v. State, 855 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (relevance and linkage to facts for expert testimony)
Pierce v. State, 777 S.W.2d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (general expert testimony must tie to case facts)
Williams v. State, 895 S.W.2d 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (relevance/facts fit in eyewitness testimony context)
Cohn v. State, 849 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (child victim testimony tied to field principles)
Downing v. United States, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985) (Daubert-style fit for eyewitness testimony in a cross-case context)
Wade v. United States, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. Supreme Court 1967) (recognizes vulnerabilities in eyewitness identifications)