Charles C. Peterson, Appellant v. State of Florida, Appellee; Charles C. Peterson, Petitioner, — Pariente, J…

Summary

Justice Pariente concurs with the majority’s affirmation of the post‑conviction court’s denial of relief and holds that counsel’s failure to retain an eyewitness identification expert did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. He uses the opinion to argue that expert testimony on eyewitness identification should generally be admissible because jurors lack the scientific knowledge to assess its reliability.