State of Connecticut v. J’veil Outing

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s murder conviction, holding that the eyewitness identification procedures were not unnecessarily suggestive, that the remaining identification-expert claims were either academic, harmless, or unpreserved, and that the trial court properly handled the psychiatric records and sequestration issues. Although the prosecutor made several improper remarks, the isolated nature of the remarks, curative instructions, and strength of the eyewitness and corroborating evidence established that the defendant received a fair trial. Justice Palmer, joined by Justices Norcott and Vertefeuille, would have reconsidered the precedent restricting expert testimony on eyewitness reliability, while Justice Norcott separately agreed that those precedents should be overruled but concurred in the result.