State of Connecticut v. J’veil Outing — Palmer, J., concurring

Summary

Justice Palmer concurred in affirming the defendant's murder conviction because the trial court's exclusion of portions of expert Jennifer Dysart's eyewitness-identification testimony was harmless, but he argued that the court should overrule its precedent treating such testimony as generally within jurors' common knowledge. He reasoned that extensive research shows eyewitness identification is vulnerable to counterintuitive sources of error and that expert testimony can meaningfully assist jurors without usurping their credibility function. Justice Norcott, concurring separately, joined Palmer's call to overrule that precedent while acknowledging the majority's concerns about preservation and the case's suitability as a vehicle for doing so.