Find Legal Information

A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder. The State's evidence consisted of foureyewitnesses who identified defendant as the shooter in a drive-by shooting. The trial courtsentenced him to 35 years in prison. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in (1)refusing to allow expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification; (2) admittingnonidentification lineup testimony; (3) admitting testimony regarding the identification of hiscodefendant; and (4) allowing lineup photographs to go back to the jury. Defendant also argues thathe received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel's failure to object to thenonidentification testimony and testimony regarding his codefendant.

On August 19, 1996, three eyewitnesses identified defendant from a lineup as the passengerwho shot Julio Lagunas in a September 3, 1995, drive-by shooting. He was arrested and chargedwith first degree murder. The driver of the car, Mark Robinson, had already been arrested andcharged in connection with the crime.⁽¹⁾ On September 12, 1997, a fourth eyewitness pickeddefendant out of a lineup as the shooter. Defendant filed motions in limine to quash his arrest andsuppress the lineup identifications. The trial court denied the motions.

Defendant also filed a motion in limine to allow expert testimony on eyewitnessidentification. Defense counsel asserted that Dr. Elizabeth Loftus would testify regarding thescientific bases for eyewitness identification and identify certain areas where jurors holdmisconceptions about the identification process. Defendant's written offer of proof alleged that Dr.Loftus would discuss several factors beyond the knowledge of the average lay person that affect awitness' ability to recall. Specifically, she would have testified about the latest scientific researchconcerning the passage of time between the incident and the identification; the lack of correlationbetween the certainty with which a witness makes an identification and the validity of thatidentification; the effect of stress on a witness; weapon focus; and cross-racial identification. Although the trial court found Dr. Loftus' curriculum vitae to be "extremely impressive," itdetermined that her testimony would not ordinarily be beyond the normal knowledge of the averageperson and in this case would be more confusing than it would be helpful; however, it did not denythe motion because such testimony might not, in the appropriate case, be proper. Consequently, thetrial court denied the motion.

At trial, the State called Gerardo Quiroz. Gerardo testified that on September 3, 1995, he wasstanding on the sidewalk outside Clark Mall. His friend Jose Ramos was making a call on a payphone at the mall entrance. The parking lot was next to the entrance of the mall. Gerardo's brother,Osvaldo, was standing near Jose. Gerardo observed a car heading south on Clark Street. The carwas a black IROC Camaro with tinted windows, chrome wheels, and two tailpipes. The sidewindows of the car were down. The car pulled into the mall entrance and stopped near the phones. The two men inside the car attempted to talk to some girls who were heading toward the mallentrance. After the girls entered the mall, the car drove toward the back of the parking lot, turnedright, and came through the middle of the lot. The car stopped on the sidewalk before turning leftinto Clark Street. At this point, Gerardo was closer to Jose, and the car was approximately 30 to 40feet from them when Gerardo saw the passenger pull out a gun and point it at them. Gerardotestified that he tried to hide behind a nearby brick pillar but was able to focus on the face of thepassenger. Gerardo identified defendant as the passenger.

Gerardo saw Francisco Curonel standing across the street in front of Touhy Park as Gerardoand Jose followed the car on the Touhy Park (east) side of the street. Osvaldo remained on the mallside of the street. Francisco attempted to "hit" the car with something but missed. The passengertook out the gun and pointed it at Francisco, who ducked. The car continued along Clark Street andwent through the Jarvis, Clark and Rogers intersection. Osvaldo crossed the street from the mallside. Gerardo saw Julio Lagunas and Ulysses Renteria, who died before the trial started, trying tocross Clark Street from the Touhy Park side of the street. The car stopped, and Gerardo "saw a handsticking out" from the passenger side of the car. At this point, Gerardo was at the Jarvis intersectionnorth of the mall. There was a gun in the passenger's hand, and it was pointed toward Julio andUlysses when Gerardo heard a gunshot. The car then sped up and "took off north." Gerardo ran upto Julio and Ulysses. Jose was already there, and Osvaldo arrived immediately thereafter. Osvaldowent home before the police arrived. Gerardo, Jose, Francisco, and Ulysses described the car to thepolice and were taken to the 24th District police station where they viewed the car.

Gerardo testified that he was then taken to Belmont and Western station to talk to detectives. Gerardo described the passenger as a 23-year-old skinny black male with braided hair and a lightcomplexion. He viewed a lineup but was unable to identify anyone. On August 16, 1996, Gerardoviewed another lineup and recognized the second person from the left as the passenger, whom heidentified as the defendant, and he also identified People's exhibit 14 as a picture of the lineupplacing an "X" over the passenger's head.

During cross-examination, when defense counsel asked Gerardo if he was initially 30 to 40feet away from Jose and Osvaldo, he answered "no." Defense counsel attempted to impeach himwith testimony he apparently gave during Robinson's trial. Gerardo did not remember testifying thatJose and Osvaldo were 30 to 40 feet away from him. The parties stipulated that on July 10, 1997,Gerardo testified that he was on the sidewalk on the side of the mall and that Osvaldo and Jose were30 or 40 feet away from him. Gerardo explained that when the car first pulled into the lot, he sawtwo black males but couldn't tell what they looked like at that point. Gerardo moved over to thephones. The car made its way around the parking lot and stopped before turning onto Clark Street. He saw the passenger pull out the gun. He denied feeling fearful, stressed, or nervous. The carturned left and went north on Clark. Gerardo stated that he "hung back a bit" as he followed the car.

Gerardo admitted that he talked with the others about what they saw when they went to viewthe first lineup at Belmont and Western. He did not remember talking to Osvaldo and Franciscowhen he viewed the lineup a year later nor did he remember what the passenger was wearing, buthe did remember that the passenger had braids close to his head with beads on the end. He told thepolice at the scene about the braids.

The State called Osvaldo Quiroz next. Osvaldo testified that he was standing near the payphones with Jose. Gerardo was standing about 20 feet to the south on the sidewalk. A car camethrough the driveway of the parking lot and stopped right at the phones. It was a black IROCCamaro with chrome pipes, chrome rims, and tinted windows. The windows were down and hecould see two black people inside the car. He saw them talk to "two or three" girls. Osvaldo wasabout 20 feet from the car and could see inside the vehicle. The driver's side was closest to him. Hedescribed the driver as having dark skin, short hair, and a thin mustache. The car drove to the backof the lot, came up through the middle aisle, and stopped. At that point, the passenger's side wasclosest to Osvaldo, who was standing approximately 40 feet away. He described the passenger asa dark male who had long braided hair with black, white, and blue beads at the end of the hair. Thepassenger pulled out a gun and pointed it in Osvaldo's direction. The others hid behind a brick pole. The car then turned left out of the lot. Osvaldo identified defendant as the passenger.

Osvaldo saw Francisco standing beside the sidewalk across the street near Touhy Park. Osvaldo testified that he yelled "watch out for the car" to Francisco. Francisco started running northon Clark on the Touhy Park side of the street. Gerardo started running north on Clark on the mallside of the street. The car stopped for "a little while" at the light at Jarvis, then took off. The carstopped again, and he heard a shot. At this point, Osvaldo was about half a block away and crossingfrom the mall side of the street to the Touhy Park side. The car sped off north on Clark. Thefollowing day, Osvaldo saw the shooter in a green Nissan Maxima. The shooter stared at him andthen lay back on the seat.

On September 12, 1995, Osvaldo spoke with the police at Belmont and Western and lookedat some pictures. He identified the driver from a photograph the police showed him. Osvaldo toldthem he was "pretty sure that was the guy but he needed to see him in person." Osvaldo went backto the station on September 21, 1995, to view a lineup. Gerardo was there too, but Osvaldo did nottalk to Gerardo before viewing the lineup. He identified Robinson as the driver. There was a personin the lineup who had corn rows or braids in his hair, but it was not defendant. On August 16, 1996,Osvaldo saw another lineup. Ulysses, Gerardo, Jose, and Francisco were also there but Osvaldo didnot talk with them before viewing the lineup. Osvaldo identified People's exhibit 17 as a picture ofthe lineup and identified defendant as the person he identified. Osvaldo put an "X" over defendant'shead.

During cross-examination, Osvaldo stated that he did not hear what Jose said while he wason the phone. Gerardo was about 20 feet away from him. Defense counsel tried to impeach himwith testimony he gave during Robinson's grand jury, but Osvaldo did not remember saying Gerardowas 30 to 40 feet away from him. The parties later stipulated that on August 22, 1996, Osvaldotestified that Gerardo was 30 or 40 feet away from him. Defense counsel then tried to impeachOsvaldo with testimony he gave during defendant's grand jury. When asked if he said the carstopped for about a second by the pay phones, he said that was not correct. He did not remembersaying that the car "just pulled off" after the occupants talked to the girls. The parties later stipulatedthat on July 10, 1997, Osvaldo testified that "the car stopped by the phone for about a second, theytalked to some girls, then pulled off." Before the car left, the driver's side was closest to him. Thecar then pulled around to the back of the lot, turned, and stopped again before turning left onto Clark. He hid when he saw the passenger display a gun. Osvaldo described what the gun looked like.

Osvaldo stayed back at the mall. Gerardo and Jose crossed to the Touhy Park side. Osvaldosaw Francisco running north on the Touhy Park side of the street. The car stopped at the red lightat the next intersection, then ran it. Defense counsel attempted to impeach Osvaldo with testimonyhe gave during Robinson's trial. He recalled being asked if the car went through the red light andanswering "yes." Osvaldo stated that he viewed the August 16, 1996, lineup separately from theother witnesses and did not talk about the crime with them on the way to the station. Defensecounsel asked Osvaldo if he thought he saw the passenger the next day. Osvaldo answered "I didn'tthink-I saw him."

The State called Francisco Curonel next, who testified that he was by himself near TouhyPark, which is the on east side of Clark. He saw a dark grey IROC Z car drive slowly down Clarkheading south. The car had "nice rims," tinted windows, and chrome pipes. The driver's windowwas down. The driver was black and had short hair, a bald head, a goatee, and was wearing a blackT-shirt. The car turned into Clark Mall, which was approximately 15 feet away from where he wasstanding. After the car turned into the mall parking lot, he "hear[d] some voices that was saying,'watch out with the car, they've got a gun.'" He saw Jose, Gerardo, and Osvaldo by the pay phones. The car pulled out from the middle of the parking lot and turned north on Clark. The passengerthrew his arm out and pointed a gun at him. Francisco threw a bag at the car and then fell to theground. The passenger was about 10 or 7 feet away from him. He identified defendant as thepassenger. Francisco got up and started running toward Julio and Ulysses, who were approximately100 feet away. He yelled "watch out with the car, they got a gun." The car stopped at the light fora "couple of seconds," then sped up. The car slowed when the occupants saw Julio and Ulysses. Thepassenger put his arm out of the window with a gun in his hand. Francisco was about five feet awayfrom the car when the shot went off.

The police took him, Ulysses, Jose, and Gerardo to the 24th District, where he saw the car. The police then took them to Belmont and Western to view a lineup. Francisco was "90 percentsure" he saw the driver. He described the passenger as a black male, about 25 to 28, with a skinnyface and braided hair close to his head. Francisco went back to Belmont and Western on August 16,1996, to view another lineup. He identified People's exhibit 26 as a picture of the lineup. Heidentified the shooter and put an "X" over the head of that person. Francisco testified that he sawthe lineup by himself and did not have a chance to talk with Gerardo or Osvaldo after viewing it.

During cross-examination, Francisco stated that when the car first passed him heading southon Clark Street, the driver's window was down and he could see the driver and the passenger. Defense counsel attempted to impeach him with testimony he gave during Robinson's trial. Although Francisco did not recall being asked if he was able to see the passenger of the car, he didrecall answering "not at that time." Francisco explained that he saw two people in the car but thathe couldn't see what the passenger looked like at that time.

On redirect, he testified that he saw the face of the person pointing the gun at him andidentified defendant as that person. On recross, he stated that the car was driving slowly as it passedhim the second time.

The State then called Jose Ramos, who testified that he was on the pay phone. Gerardo andOsvaldo "[were] right next to [him]." A black IROC Camaro stopped right in front of him on thesidewalk. The car had a tinted back window, chrome rims, and two chrome tail pipes. The car wasabout 5 to 10 feet away from him. The windows were down, and he could see two males. Thepassenger was smoking marijuana, and there was a gun between the seats. The passenger grabbedthe gun and put it between his legs. The passenger had braids. He identified defendant as thepassenger. The car "took off," and he hung up the phone. The car went around the lot and came outthe middle. Before turning left onto Clark, defendant pointed the gun at him. Jose saw Franciscoacross the street. Francisco tried to throw something at the car and then hit the ground whendefendant pointed the gun at him. Jose ran across the street to Francisco. The car went through ared light. Jose saw Julio trying to cross the street. The car pulled up to the sidewalk right next toJulio. A shot came from the passenger side of the car, after which the car kept going. Jose andFrancisco ran up to where Julio was lying. Osvaldo and Gerardo were there too. After giving adescription of the car to the police, they were taken to the 24th District. Jose saw the car in theparking lot in back of the station. The police then took them to Belmont and Western. Josedescribed the passenger as 21 to 25 years old, dark skinned, with braids. He looked at a lineup thatnight but was unable to identify anyone. On September 12, 1997, Jose saw another lineup andidentified defendant as the passenger. Jose identified People's exhibit 30 as a picture of the lineupand put an "X" over the person he identified.

During cross-examination, Jose stated that he saw three girls go into the mall, although hecould not remember how many girls he told the police he saw. He saw the gun after the girls hadalready passed by. Jose turned his back to the car and hung up the phone. The parties laterstipulated that on July 11, 1997, Jose was asked if he saw the gun just before the car pulled off andthat Jose replied "No. I see the gun. They was talking to the girls." The car went to the back of thelot, made a couple of right turns, and stopped. The passenger pulled out the gun and pointed it athim, Osvaldo, and Gerardo. When he saw the gun, he ran across the street. Gerardo also crossedthe street, but he could not remember what Osvaldo did. Jose followed the car but hung back a bit. The car did not stop at the red light, but made a "quick stop" and pulled close to the sidewalk whereJulio and Ulysses were. Jose did not see any ornaments or beads in the passenger's braids. He andhis friends talked to the police in different rooms at the police station. He acknowledged that whenthey were not talking to the police, they were together. Jose did not identify anyone in the lineup thatnight. Jose admitted that he did not identify the driver during Robinson's trial or any other time. OnSeptember 12, 1997, he was asked to view another lineup. The room where the lineup took placewas not lit up like in the photo. He waited until all eight men stepped forward and turned aroundbefore identifying "#4" as the passenger.

Officer Gaskew testified that he obtained a description of the car from the witnesses at thescene. The witnesses told him the passenger was wearing dark clothing and had braids or corn rowsin his hair. Their description did not include beads in the passenger's hair.

Officer Floyd Eppling testified that he was driving a squad car when he received a messageabout a vehicle wanted in connection with a shooting. Officer Eppling saw a car that matched thedescription. The driver's window was down part way, and he saw two black people in front. Thepassenger had either braids or waves with multicolored beads. He could not tell if the person wasmale or female. There was too much traffic to make an immediate U-turn, but he eventually caughtup to the car and pulled it over; however, the passenger was no longer in the car. He brought thedriver to the 24th District and his partner drove the car to the station. The crime scene was about2-1/2 miles from where he pulled the car over.

During cross-examination, Officer Eppling stated that he saw the car about five minutes afterreceiving the message. The passenger's braids were about shoulder length, hanging, withmulticolored beads. He could not see the passenger's face. He did not see the passenger leave thecar, but stated "[i]t had to be on the 5800 block of Sheridan" after the car passed the squad car.

Detective Greg Pattitsis interviewed Francisco at the 24th District. Francisco tentativelyidentified Robinson as the driver. Francisco said "it looked like the individual that was driving thecar, but he wasn't sure." Gerardo and Jose did not identify anyone. He also interviewed Osvaldo afew days later. Osvaldo described the passenger as 23 to 28 years old, dark complected, with braidedhair and curls or strands in the back with black, white, and blue beads. Osvaldo picked Robinsonout of a photo array as the driver but asked to see him in person. Osvaldo picked Robinson out ofa lineup as the driver.

On August 16, 1996, defendant was brought to Area 3. Gerardo, Osvaldo, and Franciscocame to the station and viewed a lineup. They identified defendant as the passenger. DetectivePattitsis identified People's Exhibit 41 as an individual picture of defendant taken from the lineup. Defendant was 21 years old at the time, 5 feet 9 inches, 155 pounds, and had a braided hairstyle. Hegave two addresses, one of which was about five blocks from the crime scene. On September 12,1997, Jose viewed a lineup at the county jail. Jose identified defendant as the passenger. DetectivePattitsis identified People's exhibit 42 as an individual picture of defendant taken from the lineup. Defendant had a different hairstyle than the one he had in August.

During cross-examination, defense counsel asked Detective Pattitsis if Osvaldo told him thatthe passenger had long black hanging braids with white, black, and blue beads on the end. DetectivePattitsis replied "No. Not totally correct." Defense counsel attempted to impeach him with hishandwritten notes from his interview with Osvaldo. When asked if the police report and his notesindicated that Osvaldo gave that description of the passenger, Detective Pattitsis replied "Yes."Detective Pattitsis admitted that defendant was the only person in the first lineup whose hair was incorn rows or braids close to his head. The photograph of the second lineup defendant participatedin was taken outside because the lighting conditions at the county jail were bad.

Officer Robert Labbe testified that he interviewed Jose, who described the passenger as ablack male with a dark complexion and black hair with corn rows. Officer Labbe was not presentwhen the September 3, 1995, lineup was conducted. He interviewed Osvaldo on September 12,1995, and showed him a group of photographs. Osvaldo picked the photograph of Robinson andsaid he was "pretty sure that was the person that was driving the vehicle at the shooting," but that hewanted to see him in person. When Osvaldo viewed a lineup on September 21, 1995, he pickedRobinson as the driver. During cross-examination, Officer Labbe acknowledged that his policereport said nothing about the girls crossing in front of the car.

Detective Stephen Schorsch identified a photograph of defendant taken on August 16, 1996. Defendant's hair was in braids. Detective Schorsch also identified a photograph of defendant takenon September 12, 1997. His hair was no longer in braids and was short. The light at the viewingwindow in the September lineup allowed the witness to see the face of each person.

During cross-examination, Detective Schorsch admitted that he had complained about thelighting conditions during the second lineup but was told they could not be improved. On redirect,he testified that he could see the participants before they stepped up to the viewing window.

Defendant's motion for a directed finding was denied.

The defense first called Patrick Moran, the forensic investigator who lifted fingerprints fromthe car.

The defense next called Richard McGrath, an expert in latent fingerprint identification. Heexamined the latent fingerprints recovered from the car. Only two were suitable for comparison withfingerprints in the automated fingerprint identification system. There were no positive comparisons. He was asked to compare the latent prints to fingerprints of Robinson and defendant. Robinson'smatched, but defendant's did not. On cross-examination, he testified that fingerprints are notnecessarily left behind every time a person touches a surface and that it cannot be determined howlong a fingerprint has been in a particular place.

The trial court's instruction to the jury included the following:

"When you weigh the identification testimony of a witness, you should consider allthe facts and circumstances in evidence including but not limited to the following:The opportunity the witness had to view the offender at the time of the offense or thewitness's degree of attention at the time of the offense; or the witness' earlierdescription of the offender; or the level of certainty shown by the witness whenconfronting the defendant; or the length of time between the offense and theidentification confrontation."

The trial court allowed the lineup photographs to go back with the jury over defense counsel'sobjection.

The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder.

On November 21, 1997, defendant filed a motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstandingthe verdict. At the hearing, defense counsel argued that the defense should have been allowed topresent expert testimony concerning eyewitness identification. Before ruling, the trial judge statedthat he "would have weighed the evidence differently *** and that he was not personally convincedbased on the evidence that defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." However, thetrial court denied the motion, finding that there was a rational basis to find defendant guilty.

The trial court sentenced defendant to 35 years' imprisonment.

Defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the State impermissibly attemptedto bolster its case by having Gerardo, Osvaldo, and Jose testify that, prior to viewing the lineup fromwhich they identified defendant, they viewed another lineup from which they did not identify anyoneas being the passenger. Defendant was not in this initial lineup. Defendant concedes that he haswaived this issue for review since he did not object to the testimony at trial or in his posttrial motion. See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (1988). However, defendant urges us to apply the plain errorrule. The plain error doctrine (134 Ill. 2d R.615(a)) may be applied where the evidence is closelybalanced or where the error is of such magnitude that it denied the accused a fair trial. People v.Ward, 154 Ill. 2d 272 (1992). The State maintains that the evidence is overwhelming since foureyewitnesses identified defendant as the shooter.

Unless vague or doubtful, eyewitness identification of an accused will sustain a convictionif the witness viewed the accused under circumstances permitting a positive identification. Peoplev. Lewis, 165 Ill. 2d 305 (1995). Factors to consider in determining whether an identification isreliable are: (1) the opportunity the witness had to view the offender at the time of the offense; (2)the witness' degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the offender; (4)the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification confrontation; and (5) thelength of time between the incident and the identification confrontation. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S.188, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401, 93 S. Ct. 375 (1972); People v. Homes, 274 Ill. App. 3d 612 (1995). Areviewing court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact on questions involvingthe credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence. Homes, 274 Ill. App. 3d at 621.

In Homes, the defendant was charged with several offenses that arose out of a drive-byshooting. Two eyewitnesses positively identified the defendant as the shooter from a lineup. Thefirst witness testified that he was 30 feet away from the defendant's car when he saw the defendantpoint a gun toward some pay phones and fire four shots. The second witness, who was the intendedvictim, testified that he was speaking on one of the pay phones when he saw a car stop at a nearbycorner. He saw the defendant fire two shots, get out of the car and fire two more shots. The trialcourt found defendant guilty. The appellate court, in affirming, held that the State proved thedefendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the shooting took place during thedaylight; both witnesses knew the defendant; both had ample opportunity to view the shooter; andboth gave good, consistent descriptions of the car and the gun.

Unlike Homes, none of the eyewitnesses knew defendant or viewed him for a considerablelength of time. There was no physical evidence linking defendant to the crime, and defendant wasnot arrested near the scene. See People v. Lewis, 243 Ill. App. 3d 618 (1993). Defendant did notconfess, and Robinson did not testify. See People v. Harris, 182 Ill. 2d 114 (1998). Although allfour eyewitnesses independently identified defendant in lineups and in court, we cannot ignore thesubstantial amount of time that elapsed between the offense and the lineup identifications. Osvaldo,Gerardo, and Francisco picked defendant out of a lineup almost a year after the shooting. Josepicked defendant out of a lineup two years later. Although Osvaldo and Jose had the bestopportunity to view the passenger, the driver was in their line of sight when the car was closest tothem. Therefore, we agree with defendant that the evidence was closely balanced.

The State may not bolster a witness' identification of a defendant by introducing evidence thatthe witness failed to identify anyone else during pretrial identification procedures. People v. Hayes,139 Ill. 2d 89 (1990). Witnesses cannot testify as to statements made out of court in an effort tocorroborate their trial testimony on the same subject. People v. Biggers, 273 Ill. App. 3d 116 (1995). Here, defendant complains that the prosecutor relied on the nonidentifications to show how carefulthe witnesses were in their identifications of defendant. Gerardo and Jose testified that they vieweda lineup on September 3, 1995, but were unable to identify anyone. Osvaldo testified that he vieweda lineup on September 21, 1995, from which he identified the driver but not the passenger. Therecord establishes that the prosecutor relied on this testimony during closing argument. It is clearthat the nonidentification testimony should not have been allowed because it was presented simplyto corroborate the witnesses' subsequent identification of defendant. However, the error cannot beconsidered harmless. The cases the State relies on are inapplicable. In People v. Berry, 264 Ill. App.3d 773 (1994), the victim testified that she failed to identify anyone in a lineup less than a week afterthe robbery but that she identified the defendant as soon as she saw him in a second lineup onemonth later. The court held that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidenceagainst the defendant. In People v. Jones, 153 Ill. 2d 155 (1992), the court held that while theevidence against the defendant was not overwhelming, it was not so close that the trial court's errorin admitting the robbery victim's nonidentification testimony, standing alone, required reversal. However, the victim was able to view the defendant as he approached her car, when she turned tohand him her purse, and while she was in the car with him. In contrast to Berry and Jones, theevidence in the instant case was closely balanced. It is quite possible that the jury would havereturned a different verdict had the nonidentification testimony been excluded. Therefore, the trialcourt's error in admitting the testimony warrants reversal under Hayes. The holding in Hayes isclear, and as an intermediate reviewing court, we are bound to follow its mandate; however, it isdifficult to imagine that this is the issue upon which the jury determined the credibility of thewitnesses.

We agree with defendant that his trial attorney should have objected to the nonidentificationtestimony and raised the issue in the posttrial motion. However, defendant's ineffective assistanceargument is immaterial, given our consideration of the issue under the plain error doctrine.

We now consider an issue likely to arise on remand. Defendant argues that the trial courterred by denying his motion in limine to admit the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus on the subject ofeyewitness identification. The State argues that the trial court correctly denied defendant's requestbecause the reliability of eyewitness identifications is not beyond the common knowledge of theaverage juror.

In Illinois, expert testimony is generally allowed if (1) the testimony reflects generallyaccepted scientific or technical principles; (2) the expert's experience and qualifications afford himknowledge that is not common to lay persons; and (3) the testimony will aid the trier of fact inreaching its conclusion. People v. Enis, 139 Ill. 2d 264 (1990); People v. Cloutier, 156 Ill. 2d 483(1993). The admission of eyewitness identification expert testimony is within the sound discretionof the trial court and its ruling should not be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse of thatdiscretion. Enis, 139 Ill. 2d at 289-90. In Enis, the trial court granted the State's motion in limineto preclude expert testimony regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony. In an offer of proof,the defense claimed that the expert would testify that the relationship between confidence andaccuracy is insignificant; that the higher the stress level the less accurate the memory; that theidentification is usually worse when a weapon is present; and that jurors give too much weight totime estimates. The trial court held that the testimony would amount only to speculation. Thedefendant was convicted of first degree murder. Although the Illinois Supreme Court reversed andremanded on another issue, it found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because thetestimony would not have aided the jury in reaching its conclusion. Enis, 139 Ill. 2d at 288. Specifically, the court noted that none of the eyewitnesses was in a high stress situation; that onlyone witness testified that he saw a weapon; and that testimony regarding time or estimates was notrelevant. The court also noted that while witness confidence may have been present, that factoralone did not require a new trial. The court expressed its concern with the reliability of eyewitnessexpert testimony and cautioned that a trial court must exercise discretion and consider both thenecessity and relevance of expert testimony in a particular case.

Illinois courts have uniformly upheld a trial court's refusal to allow such testimony. Forexample, in People v. Dixon, 87 Ill. App. 3d 814 (1980), the court held that the trial court properlyexcluded expert testimony concerning unreliability of cross-racial identifications, reasoning that thetrustworthiness of eyewitness observations is not generally beyond the common knowledge andexperience of the average juror. See also People v. Johnson, 97 Ill. App. 3d 1055 (1981) (same). People v. Perruquet, 118 Ill. App. 3d 339 (1983), held that the trial court properly excluded experttestimony regarding the effect of stress upon a victim's recall of events where a weapon is used. InPeople v. Brown, 100 Ill. App. 3d 57 (1981), the court held that factors such as stress, opportunityto observe, distortion of memory, and problems of cross-racial identification are within the realmof common experience and can be evaluated by the jury without expert assistance. Brown, 100 Ill.App. 3d at 72. Similarly, in People v. Clark, 124 Ill. App. 3d 14 (1984), the trial court granted theState's pretrial motion to exclude expert testimony on eyewitness identification. In the offer of proof,defense counsel stated that the expert would testify about several factors that affect the reliability ofeyewitness identification, including stress, witness confidence, and weapon focus. The appellatecourt held that the trial court did not err in excluding the testimony since these factors are within theprovince of the jury. Clark, 124 Ill. App. 3d at 22-23. See also People v. Biggers, 273 Ill. App. 3d116 (1995). We note that the Seventh Circuit disfavors expert testimony on the reliability ofeyewitness identification. See, e.g., United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999).

Again, we note that the court here has properly weighed the benefits of such testimony andhas exercised its discretion in not allowing the expert to testify, rather than ruling outright that suchtestimony can never be probative.

Other jurisdictions have found that the exclusion of expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification is an abuse of discretion. In State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983),the court held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony based on theunusual facts of the case. Chapple involved a murder by a person whom the witnesses had never metbefore and did not identify until 13 months later. In the interim, the witnesses were shown manyother photographs, including one of the defendant which they did not identify. They also picked outanother person as resembling one of the gunmen; that person was an acquaintance of both one of theperpetrators and one of the victims. The court found that the proffered expert testimony was limitedto general factors relevant to the reliability of eyewitness identification which would have beenapplicable to the facts. See also Skamarocius v. State, 731 P.2d 63 (Alaska App. 1987) (finding thatthe trial court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony where identity was central to thecase and the victim could not positively identify the defendant); People v. Campbell, 847 P.2d 228(Colo. App. 1992) (finding the exclusion of expert testimony to be reversible error where there wasno corroborating evidence and the testimony "fit" the evidence).

Numerous studies in the area of eyewitness psychology indicate that there is significantpotential for eyewitness error and that jurors have misconceptions about the abilities of eyewitnesses. See 19 Am. Jur. POF2d Pretrial Identification 435 (West 2000 Supp.). There are two types ofeyewitness identification expert testimony. The first dispels myths or attacks commonsensemisconceptions about eyewitness identifications, such as the effects of stress and weapon focus onthe accuracy of identifications. The second provides the jury with useful information about the kindsof mental factors involved in the identification process, such as the effect of time on the reliabilityof identifications, the forgetting curve, and problems with cross-racial identifications. W. Wolfson,"That's the Man!" Well, Maybe Not: The Case for Eyewitness Identification Expert Testimony, 26Litig. 5, 6 (2000). Trial courts should carefully scrutinize the proffered testimony to determine itsrelevance-that is, whether there is a logical connection between the testimony and the facts of thecase. Normally, expert testimony that is probative and relevant should be allowed. People v.Sargeant, 292 Ill. App. 3d 508 (1997). The trial court must also determine whether the profferedtestimony would confuse or mislead the jury. We realize that other jurisdictions have formulatedguidelines for trial courts to follow when considering whether to allow such testimony. See, e.g.,State v. Moon, 45 Wash. App. 692, 726 P.2d 1263 (1986) (listing as factors the identification of thedefendant is the principal issue at trial; the presentation of an alibi defense; and little or no otherevidence linking the defendant to the crime). However, a trial court's decision to allow or excludeeyewitness identification expert testimony must be made on a case-by-case basis. Even where cross-examination of an eyewitness and an instruction are sufficient, allowing expert testimony may stillbe helpful to the trier of fact.

Defendant contends that Dr. Loftus' testimony should have been admitted because it wouldhave aided the jury in reaching a more informed decision as to the credibility of the eyewitnesstestimony. We find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Enis. The recordshows that the judge considered the reliability and potential helpfulness of the testimony, balancedthe proffered testimony against cases in which this court has upheld the exclusion of such evidence,and found that the testimony would not assist the jury. See Hall, 165 F.3d at 1106. Additionally,the record establishes that defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined all of the eyewitnesses andthat the trial court instructed the jury on the reliability of eyewitness identification. However, thetrial court would not have abused its discretion had it allowed the testimony given the facts of thiscase.

Under certain circumstances, eyewitness identification expert testimony can assist the juryin reaching a correct decision. This is such a case. The central issue at trial involved the accuracyof the eyewitness identifications. The circumstances surrounding those identifications arequestionable. See People v. Brown, 110 Ill. App. 3d 1125 (1982) (finding that the trial court did noterr in allowing, but then rejecting, expert testimony regarding the effect of stress on memory wherethe majority of factors indicated a reliable identification). Most troubling is the significant amountof time that elapsed between the crime and the identifications. There was no corroborating evidencelinking defendant to the crime. Dr. Loftus' testimony would have been relevant because she wouldhave discussed the factors that affected the reliability of the identifications in the instant case withoutdirectly commenting on the eyewitnesses' credibility.

We acknowledge that the use of expert testimony could lead to battles between experts overthe value of eyewitness identifications. However, "[g]iven the high stakes in criminal cases and theproven ability of judges to tailor issues and limit witnesses, a little extra time does not seem wastefuleven if expert witnesses are competing for the jury's attention." W. Wolfson, "That's the Man!" Well, Maybe Not: The Case for Eyewitness Identification Expert Testimony, 26 Litig. 5, 8 (2000). As the Illinois Supreme Court noted in People v. Gardner, 35 Ill. 2d 564, 572 (1966), "[o]f all thefactors that account for the conviction of the innocent, the fallibility of eye-witness identificationranks at the top."

We decline to address defendant's remaining arguments.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

THEIS, J., concurs.

QUINN, P.J., specially concurs.