WPC +ʼf$pv̂d򞛼&3LouzB%=!a1਻ā\x,զtc xtArT4vO5t$qKcE{Ejcyi$vF}93qy`!=۪l .IV4 Ȝ 2A)ɯDK>L։)N-g+p>D7(6Cϵx>.$ -#U15`bz"S8$[)t*KƤB^#2tiMxRne屔<(UEo$Xe'$Ct4`" vOBo"0TQ/Ahp>N))m{\GPJk(;s hlZ~ဳQm-獠lzb[&_dheK>iõ%m}XT/ze, a |])7X(`,vߓNˆtҧ# F U>Q % 0 UB 4  n U: f 4 "< w@^  U: B D3 0D AOT 0Di D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh<( 9Z &Courier RegularX($  7'CXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|xs<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\    abEcdeEfgEhiejӀ XXXX?XX   Ad FILEDXX?  October13,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  7kXXdd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi  ݛXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T † : XXXX7  XXdXXd7jr*<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  rߛj8 @ D x xINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%DATNASHVILLE@@66-R   JUNE1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, h   )   80 Ѐ    h   )    Appellee, h   )  No.03C019707CC00270       h   )       h   )  WilliamsonCounty   v.    h   )       h   )  HonorableDonaldP.Harris,Judge       h   )EDDIEL.COLEY,JR., h   )  (AggravatedRobbery) h`     h   ) Appellant. h   ) 4, @&D DISSENTINGOPINION   ̀ Irespectfullydisagreewithbothofmycolleaguesandbelievethatthe ph judgmentshouldbevacatedandthecaseremandedforahearingfortheproperdeterminationoftheadmissibilityofDr.JohnsonstestimonyunderRule702,Tenn.R.Evid.,andMcDanielv.CSXTransportation,Inc.,955S.W.2d257(Tenn.1997).The #  trialcourtessentiallyheldboththatpsychologyhasnotreachedthelevelofreliabilitytopermittestimonyregardingeyewitnessidentificationandthattheexpertwouldnotbeofassistancetothejury.Unfortunately,though,thetrialcourtmadetheserulingswithouthavingheardanytestimonybyDr.Johnsonaboutthepresentextentofeyewitnessidentificationresearchandtheextentofresearchfindingsthatcouldcontradictcommonassumptionsaboutfactorsthatarethoughttobearontheissueofreliabilityofidentification.Inthisrespect,itisunfortunatethattheinformationcomestousonlyasaprofferasopposedtowitnesstestimonysubjecttoprobingcrossexamination. ThedefendantsprofferreflectsthatDr.Johnsonsexpertiseisbaseduponsubstantialresearchbyhimandothersintothementalprocessesthatareimportanttoeyewitnessidentification.TheprofferreflectsthatDr.Johnsonwas d9\28 preparedtotestify,amongotherthings,thatthelevelofthevictimscertaintyorconfidenceinhisorheridentificationhasnocorrelationtothelevelofaccuracyintheidentificationwhenthefactsaresimilartothoseinthepresentcase.Ifthisistrue,itdirectlycontradictstheassumption,recognizedbyoursupremecourt,thatthedegreeofcertaintyexpressedbythewitnessregardingtheidentificationhasabearingontheaccuracyoftheidentification.See,e.g.,Statev.Dyle,899S.W.2d607,612(Tenn.   1995);seealsoNeilv.Biggers,409U.S.188,199200,93S.Ct.375,382(1972).   Certainly,Dr.Johnsonsexpertisewouldsubstantiallyassistthejuryrelativetoitsassessmentofthismisconceptionthatisnotcommonlyunderstoodbythepublic.Theremainingquestion,then,iswhethertheeyewitnessexperttestimonyisbasedupontrustworthyfactsanddataanduponsufficientlyvalidandreliablereasoningormethodology.SeeMcDaniel,955S.W.2dat265(Tenn.1997).   AsJudgePeaysopinionreflects,thestatescaserestssolelyupontheeyewitnessidentificationtestimonyofthetworobberyvictims.Thereisnootherevidenceconnectingthedefendanttothecrime.Thedefendantpresentedanalibidefense.Underthesecircumstances,thethoughtsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtaresignificant:  8 Thevagariesofeyewitnessidentificationarewellknown;theannalsofcriminallawarerifewithinstancesofmistakenidentification....Theidentificationofstrangersisproverbiallyuntrustworthy.ThehazardsofsuchtestimonyareestablishedbyaformidablenumberofinstancesintherecordsofEnglishandAmericantrials.  x x   UnitedStatesv.Wade,388U.S.218,228,87S.Ct.1926,1933(1967).Thisconcern .', hasbeenexpressedbyoursupremecourt,aswell.Dyle,899S.W.2dat609(Tenn. \0T). 1995).iiaWeshouldnotlightlycastabaasabcacdsideeyewded8thdefitnessidentificationexperttestimonyaslackingvafgfkyefghluetooursystemofjustice.hiiii 706  Also,giventhefactthatStatev.Ward,712S.W.2d485(Tenn.Crim.App.  1986),analyzestheissueoftheadmissionofeyewitnessidentificationexperttestimonyhhinthecontextofthediscretionofthetrialcourt,IquestionJudgeHayesstatementthatcurrentTennesseelawforbidstheintroductionofsuchevidence.Regardless,itistimetorevisittheissuebasedupontheadditionalresearchandstudiesthathavebeenconducted.However,wecannotdoitontherecordbeforeus.Therefore,Iwouldremandthecaseforfurtherhearing.    h     ________________________________    h     JosephM.Tipton,Judge    h