CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Green

On January 11, 1990, Sun Ok Kim was assaulted, robbed, and subjected to an attempted burglary. Two weeks later, she identified Kenneth Green in a police lineup. Green subsequently filed a motion to suppress the identification testimony, citing both suggestive lineup procedures and the scientific unreliability of eyewitness identification. The court considered expert testimony regarding the factors affecting eyewitness accuracy, including witness confidence and stress levels, but found no evidence of suggestiveness in the police's conduct. Ultimately, the court denied Green's motion in its entirety, ruling that the scientific arguments related to the weight of the identification evidence, not its admissibility, which remains a question for the jury.

Eyewitness IdentificationSuppression MotionDue ProcessSuggestive LineupScientific ReliabilityYerkes-Dodson LawCriminal ProcedureAdmissibility of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceHuman Perception
References
4
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 81574[U]
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Santiago

This case addresses the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identification in a criminal assault trial. The defendant, Edwin Santiago, was identified by the victim and two other witnesses, but concerns arose regarding the reliability of these identifications due to factors like partial concealment, initial uncertainty, and potential post-event influences. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion to admit expert testimony, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding key expert testimony on eyewitness recognition memory and ordered a new trial, finding the corroborating evidence insufficient to bypass the need for such testimony.

Eyewitness IdentificationExpert Testimony AdmissibilityEyewitness Recognition MemoryMistaken IdentificationCriminal AssaultAppellate ReviewNew Trial OrderedCorroborating EvidenceFrye HearingConfidence-Accuracy Correlation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Drake

The dissenting opinion in People v. Paris Drake argues that the trial court made two significant errors. Firstly, the court improperly instructed the jury that expert testimony on eyewitness identification, provided by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, could not be used to discredit or accredit eyewitness accounts. This instruction, according to the dissent, effectively negated the defense's ability to challenge the reliability of crucial eyewitness testimony. Secondly, the dissent contends that the trial court erred by refusing an in camera review of a key eyewitness's psychiatric records, which could have shed light on her perception given her medication for anxiety. These errors, the dissent concludes, were prejudicial and warrant a reversal of the conviction for first-degree assault and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

Eyewitness IdentificationExpert Witness TestimonyJury InstructionsRight to Confront WitnessesPsychiatric Records ConfidentialitySixth AmendmentCriminal AssaultCriminal Possession of WeaponMemory RetentionPrejudicial Error
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1989

People v. Acosta

The defendant was convicted of multiple counts of robbery in the first degree, stemming from two separate incidents at a cosmetics store where he displayed a weapon. The convictions were based on jury trial findings and guilty pleas, leading to a sentence as a violent predicate felon. Key evidence included a latent fingerprint recovered from the crime scene and eyewitness identifications by store employees. On appeal, the defendant challenged the suggestiveness of the photographic identification procedures, but the court found these arguments without merit. The judgments of conviction were unanimously affirmed, with the court noting strong identification testimony and fingerprint evidence.

Robbery First DegreeViolent Predicate FelonJury TrialGuilty PleaFingerprint EvidenceEyewitness IdentificationPhotographic IdentificationLineup IdentificationIdentification ProcedureAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Craig

The defendant appealed his conviction for robbery in the second degree, challenging the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges, the denial of eyewitness testimony for a lineup identification, and the allowance of cross-examination regarding prior convictions. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence of guilt. It concluded that the prosecutor provided race-neutral reasons for excusing prospective jurors and that the denial of eyewitness testimony was within discretion. Furthermore, the court determined that the cross-examination on prior convictions was permissible for credibility and the sentence was not excessive given the defendant's criminal record.

robberysecond degreejury verdictperemptory challengesracial discriminationBatson challengejury selectionlineup identificationprior convictionscredibility
References
20
Case No. 14-03-01371-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2005

Green II, Johnny v. State

Appellant Johnny Green II was convicted of aggravated armed robbery and appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence regarding his identity. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence, including a positive eyewitness identification, the appellant's association with a co-conspirator, and his suspicious report of a stolen vehicle. The court addressed the inability of other witnesses to identify the appellant, attributing it to the circumstances of the robbery. Distinguishing a similar case, the court found the evidence factually sufficient and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Aggravated RobberyFactual SufficiencyEyewitness IdentificationIdentity DefenseCriminal AppealTexas LawCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCredibility of WitnessesPhotographic Spread
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Vega

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree after a jury trial in Bronx County, presided over by Justice Lawrence Tonetti, and sentenced to 4 to 12 years. This judgment was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, crediting the complainant's unequivocal eyewitness identification and description of the getaway vehicle which led to the defendant's arrest. The People were not obligated to present testimony from a non-identifying witness to the Grand Jury, especially given the defense's awareness and the People's efforts to locate the witness. Additionally, the defendant's claims regarding jury charge errors were unpreserved for appellate review, and his belated request for a missing witness charge was denied as untimely and for failure to establish witness availability.

RobberyFirst DegreeJury TrialWitness IdentificationGetaway VehicleGrand JuryJury ChargeAppellate ReviewUntimely RequestWitness Unavailability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McDowell

The defendant, Glenn R. McDowell, facing charges including second-degree murder, moved to suppress the testimony of an eyewitness, Johnnie T. Williams, who had been hypnotized. The defense argued that the hypnosis violated McDowell's due process rights by potentially distorting the witness's memory and hindering cross-examination. Justice William J. Burke reviewed the hypnotic session and expert testimony, assessing whether established safeguards for such procedures were met. The court found substantial compliance with these safeguards and determined that the hypnosis did not irreversibly alter the witness's memory or constitute an improper identification procedure. Consequently, the motion to suppress the witness's statements and potential trial testimony was denied, with the court concluding that hypnosis generally impacts credibility rather than admissibility.

Hypnosis AdmissibilityWitness MemoryDue ProcessCriminal Procedure LawMotion to SuppressCross-Examination RightsEyewitness TestimonySuggestibilityLegal SafeguardsNew York Penal Law
References
1
Case No. WR-95,984-01
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2025

Cobb, Travis

Travis Cobb was wrongly convicted of aggravated robbery in San Antonio, Texas, and served five years of a twenty-five-year sentence. New evidence, including DNA from the crime scene matching Dustin Cody McCall (who later confessed), along with revelations about a flawed eyewitness identification and misleading police information, conclusively demonstrated Cobb's actual innocence. Both the State and the habeas court agreed to grant actual innocence relief. This concurring opinion by Judge Richardson affirms the majority's finding, emphasizing the importance of upholding the established "Herculean" standard for actual innocence in Texas (Ex parte Elizondo). The opinion critiques fellow Judge Yeary's consistent attempts to impose a stricter, effectively unattainable standard for actual innocence, citing several historical cases where similar judicial disagreements arose despite overwhelming evidence of innocence.

Actual InnocenceHabeas CorpusDNA EvidenceWrongful ConvictionEyewitness IdentificationExculpatory EvidenceJudicial ConcurrenceStandard of ProofAggravated RobberyBexar County
References
26
Case No. W1999-00844-CCA-R3-DD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2002

State v. McKinney

Timothy McKinney was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. The jury imposed a death sentence for the first-degree murder, citing a prior violent felony as an aggravating circumstance, and a consecutive twelve-year sentence for attempted second-degree murder. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, addressing various legal challenges. The Court found no error in denying expert testimony on eyewitness identification, upheld the clarity of the jury's verdict form on aggravating circumstances, and confirmed the sufficiency of evidence for the prior violent felony. It also ruled that the trial court's limitation on defense counsel's closing argument during the sentencing phase was harmless error and that victim impact evidence was properly admitted. Finally, the Court concluded that the death sentence was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate through a comparative proportionality analysis, aligning it with similar cases where capital punishment was upheld.

First Degree MurderAttempted Second Degree MurderDeath SentenceAggravating CircumstancePrior Violent FelonyEyewitness IdentificationVictim Impact EvidenceProportionality ReviewDue ProcessConstitutional Rights
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 173 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational