![]() 455, 476 (2022) (testimony regarding still image provided “context that would allow the jurors to better situate the scene and the individuals depicted in it”). A lay witness may also testify about the circumstances of the video if that testimony will assist the jury in assessing photographic evidence. 226, 237 (2022) (witness who enhanced photograph was in no better position than jury to identify defendant and should not have offered opinion as to physical similarities between image in photograph and defendant). 321, 323–329 (2000) (police officer permitted to testify that man depicted in surveillance videotape putting choke hold on victim was defendant where video was poor quality, defendant’s appearance at trial was different from how “he generally presented in everyday life,” and officer had long-standing social acquaintance with defendant unrelated to his duties as a police officer), with Commonwealth v. 426, 459–460 & n.29 (1978) (police officer permitted to testify that photograph selected by witness depicted defendant because defendant’s appearance had changed since date of offense), and Commonwealth v. 454, 476 (2019) (reversible error to allow police officer to identify person in surveillance videotape as defendant because jury was equally capable of making determination). A witness’s opinion concerning the identity of a person depicted in a photograph or video is admissible only where that witness is more likely than the jury to identify the person correctly from the photo or video. Expert testimony is not necessary for jurors to understand business records from an e-mail service provider setting forth the dates and times that e-mail accounts were created and last used. A lay witness is not permitted to testify to the intra-cell site position of a phone user because the testimony requires specialized knowledge that relates to the scientific and technological features of cell sites. Illustrations. When due to the complexity of expressing the observation such evidence might otherwise not be available, witnesses are permitted, out of necessity, to use “shorthand expressions” to describe observed facts such as the identity, size, distance, and speed of objects the length of the passage of time and the age, identity, and conduct of persons. A witness may not express an opinion about the credibility of another witness. 658, 673–674 (2017) (witness may testify about time discrepancy between video surveillance footage and GPS data to explain “investigative significance” of evidence). at 647 (“Trials are not to be delayed and witnesses made inarticulate by too nice objections or rulings as to the use of such descriptive words.”). See Commonwealth v. Ultimately, the admission of summary descriptions of observed facts is left to the discretion of the trial judge. ![]() 68, 69 (1912) (it was error to permit a police investigator to identify points of origin of a fire based simply on observations about condition of the burned structure). 327, 329 (1923) (witness permitted to testify that “all of a sudden this truck came around the corner on two wheels, and zigzagging across the street and appeared to be out of the control of the driver”) Commonwealth v. 327, 339 (1957) (condition of nervousness or happiness) Commonwealth v. 640, 647 (1961) (judge had the discretion to permit witnesses to use the words “boisterous” and “in an arrogant manner” in describing the actions of a person they observed). “The rule that witnesses in describing conduct should tell what they saw and heard does not foreclose the use of words of summary description.” Kane v. 851, 865, 869–872 (2021) (“no impermissible blurring of lines” between detective’s testimony as expert and as percipient witness where detective’s expert testimony “essentially was confined to explaining technical terms” and “was given in an effort to aid the jury’s understanding of terms used in the sex trade,” and where judge properly instructed jury on difference). ![]() Where the same witness gives both lay and expert testimony, the better practice is for the trial judge to instruct the jury about the difference. “While an expert opinion is admissible only where it will help jurors interpret evidence that lies outside of common experience, a lay opinion is admissible only where it lies within the realm of common experience” (quotation omitted). This section, which is taken nearly verbatim from Fed. (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Section 702. (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or in determining a fact in issue and ![]() (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |