State v. Leniart — concurring in part and dissenting in part

Summary

This separate opinion agrees that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court improperly excluded the video of the witness's pretest interview, but it disagrees that the exclusion was harmless. It also concludes that the defendant should have been permitted to present qualified expert testimony concerning the distinctive unreliability of jailhouse informants. Justice Palmer, joined by Justice McDonald, would find both errors prejudicial, while Justice D'Auria would find the video error prejudicial but would uphold exclusion of the expert testimony; Justice Kahn concurs in the judgment and emphasizes limits on admitting polygraph-related portions of the video.