Watson v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Brief Filed: 6/19
Court: Virginia Supreme Court
Year of Decision: 2019

Read full-text amicus brief (PDF, 640KB)opens in new window

At issue is the exclusion of jury instruction regarding the psychological science related to the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the appropriateness of allowing psychologist expert testimony regarding research related to eyewitness confidence.

Eyewitness Identification Research; Expert Witnesses

Watson was convicted of murder based on eyewitness testimony. The crime occurred at night and involved firearms. The trial court did not allow Watson’s expert, Dr. Cutler, to testify about the phenomenon of misplaced eyewitness confidence, finding that the phenomenon is “common sense”. Nor did the trial court allow the defendant’s proposed jury instruction regarding the research-based limitations on reliability of eyewitness testimony more broadly.

APA has previously submitted eight briefs regarding eyewitness reliability generally and, more specifically, in two cases, on the need for jury instructions on this topic (see, e.g., Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Gomes in 2014). In 2016, APA filed a brief in another case in the Virginia Supreme Court, Payne v. Commonwealth of Virginia, which also raised the necessity for a jury instruction regarding factors to consider in evaluating the reliability of eyewitness testimony. In Payne, the Virginia Supreme Court's decision bypassed the core question regarding the need for a jury instruction on eyewitness testimony and was resolved on other grounds, without reaching the issue of interest to APA. In taking this case, it appears the Virginia court is now ready to address the key issue to APA: whether a jury instruction is necessary to advise lay people of factors that affect the reliability of eyewitnesses. In addition, the expert witness's description of research regarding the factors that lead to misplaced confidence of eyewitnesses was ruled inadmissible as “common sense”, although the research about this phenomenon is well-developed, peer-reviewed, and the results are counterintuitive for many lay people. The broad body of psychological research on eyewitness testimony is presented to the Virginia Supreme Court for consideration, as it finally addresses the issues which are pertinent to APA.

On Dec. 12, 2019, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court did not err by excluding expert testimony regarding eyewitness confidence and unconscious transference and did not err in refusing Defendant’s proffered jury instruction on eyewitness identification.