tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-253740687045404312.post1171225338864318686..comments2024-01-23T08:05:19.898-05:00Comments on New York Criminal Defense: Brian Shiffrinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10237352678322961062noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-253740687045404312.post-60207239820644643032011-09-30T19:51:01.000-04:002011-09-30T19:51:01.000-04:00So what legitimate reason could there be to keep o...So what legitimate reason could there be to keep out the testimony of an expert who would explain how and why people falsely confess? I mean really, what would it hurt? This is the best the Court can come up with: "we conclude that the court properly determined that the expert did not possess a professional or technical knowledge that was beyond the ken of the average juror." <br><br>Really? Apparently the members of the court never, ever go to cocktail parties, where (as those of us who do go to cocktail parties are aware) it's common knowledge and roundly agreed that "I'd never confess to a crime I didn't commit." <br><br>It's hard to tell whether decisions like this stem from simple prosecutorial bias or a failure of imagination, but ultimately it doesn't matter; the result is the same.Donald Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12536036026587314189noreply@blogger.com