WPC 1uni]eo{t6ػ~_JQ.7>cqLFlԁW;^iAyb#D-{UFs8i—\gYie¡ e^ȴ邥^ĝke k88'js6lOWPl-+r*xvakD@YӜ2N"Ğ< *:<ޑ~ϭ}j QS Fi6RHj*ucS3ג g:yegl3͇ Hb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz N  Y   0DNEb 0 B 0  D3 D- 0K ASZ 0s 0D A[HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0FM) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularsM)\H. C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   - -(|G2 $ !.8Fdd8         0   d(|3G$ !.8Fdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Fdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Fdd8     _   F8yXXdd8@ D$FINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#FD$ #Ԉ &   February8,2000Session L XyXF #FXXy#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.EDDIEL.COLEY,JR.XyXF  J @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  J CircuitCourtforWilliamsonCounty  6 @@No.II895228DonaldP.Harris,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199700116SCR11CDFiledOctober13,_2000_   AV) ` dE<h` A i     #FXXyg#XyX.FJaniceM.Holder,J.,withwhomE.RileyAnderson,C.J.,joins,dissenting.#FXXy# P XyXF  Irespectfullydissent.Theadmissionofexperttestimonyonthereliabilityofeyewitness N testimonyisgovernedbyouropinioninMcDanielv._CSX_ԀTransp.,Inc.,955S.W.2d257(Tenn. : 1997),whichestablishedthetestforadmissibilityofscientificevidenceinTennessee.McDaniel &v requiresatrialcourttoconsider,basedonanonexclusivelistoffactors, whethertheevidencewill b substantiallyassistthetrieroffacttodetermineafactinissueandwhetherthefactsanddata N underlyingtheevidenceindicatealackoftrustworthiness.Id.at265.Accordingly,McDaniel : providesthetrialcourtwithatesttobeappliedonacasebycasebasistoadmitortoexcludeexpert & testimony.    Inrejectingtheexperttestimonyinthiscase,thetrialcourtdidnotconductaMcDaniel  hearing.ThisCourt,therefore,iswithoutanadequaterecorduponwhichtojudgetheproprietyof  theexclusionoftheevidenceunderourownprecedent.Theeffectofthemajoritysdecisionisto r  excludefromconsiderationunderMcDanieloneclassofprofferedscientificevidence.The ^!  majoritysapproachforeclosesjudicialrecognitionoffuturescientificadvancesinthisarea,aresult J"! seeminglyinconflictwithourrationaleforadoptionoftheMcDanielstandard.Id.at262(stating 6#" thatformerlyadoptedFryetestforadmissibilitywascriticizedas toorestrictiveofrelevant "$r# evidence,particularlyneworcuttingedgescientifictheory).Themajorityopinioneffectively %^ $ shutsthedoortofuturelegaldevelopmentinthisareabyrequiringalitiganttooverturnTennessee %J!% SupremeCourtprecedentbeforehisprofferedevidencecouldevenbeconsideredbyatrialcourt. &6"&   IagreewiththemajoritythatourDylejuryinstructionadequatelyaddressesthosefactors ($( affectingeyewitnesstestimonythatarewithinjurorscommonunderstanding.TheDylefactors, )$) however,shareonecommoncharacteristicnotfoundinthetestimonyprofferedinthiscase:they *%* relatetononscientificfactorsaffectingeyewitnesstestimony.Iamunconvincedthatthetestimony +&+ omittedinthiscaseiswithinthe commonunderstandingofthejury. n,',  Z-(-   Most,ifnotall,oftheprofferedtestimonyisscientificinnatureandthereforefallsoutside  therealmofcommonknowledge.Cf.Statev.Murphy,953S.W.2d200,20203(Tenn.1997)  (categorizinghorizontalgazenystagmus( HGN)sobrietytestsas scientificbecauseofnecessity  ofexplanationofunderlyingscientificbasisbeforetestbecomesmeaningfultoajury).Thereare t manyscientificandlegalpublicationsregardingeyewitnessidentification,andthebodyofwork, ` includingcaselaw,isgrowing.SeegenerallyRogerB.Handburg,ExpertTestimonyonEyewitness L  Identification:ANewPairofGlassesfortheJury,32Am.Crim.L.Rev.1013(1995);RobertJ. 8  Hallisey,ExpertsonEyewitnessTestimonyinCourt!AShortHistoricalPerspective,39How.L.J. $ t 237(1995);Hon.D.Duff_McKee,_ԀChallengetoEyewitnessIdentificationThroughExpert  ` Testimony,35Am.Jur.ProofofFacts3d1(1996&Supp.1999);GregoryD.Sarno,Annotation,  L  Admissibility,atCriminalProsecution,ofExpertTestimonyonReliabilityofEyewitnessTestimony,  8  46A.L.R.4th1047(1986&Supp.2000).Itisdifficulttoconcludethatsomuchscientificstudy, $  scholarlydebate,andcommenthavebeenengenderedbywhatissimplyamatterofcommon   knowledge.     Evenassumingthatthesemattersaretrulywithinjurorscommonunderstanding,therestill   existsthequestionofvalidityofthatunderstanding.Authoritiesindicatethat,inreality,many p commonlyheldnotionsregardingthereliabilityofeyewitnesstestimonyarewrong.SeeUnited \ Statesv.Smithers,212F.3d306,312n.1(6thCir._2000)_Ԁ(noting manyofthefactorsaffecting H eyewitnessimpressionsarecounterintuitive).Thus,themajoritysperserulemayactuallyserve 4 tosanctionjudiciallyandpreserveforalltimeacommonunderstandingthatis,infact,invalid.  p   Finally,themajorityscontentionthatthisevidence maymisleadandconfuse,anditcould H encouragethejurytoabandonitsresponsibilityasfactfinderspeakstoariskpresentineverycase 4 involvingexperttestimony.Itdoesnotwarrantaperserule.Accordingly,Iwouldnotadoptaper   seruleofinadmissibilityandwouldremandforadeterminationofadmissibilityunderMcDaniel.     IamauthorizedtostatethatChiefJusticeAndersonjoinsinthisdissentingopinion.     `     h     ___________________________________ D!    `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE#FXXy#