 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rogers v. Commonwealth of Kentucky9/26/2002
Q: Are there other references to the statement that indicate those things?
A: He said things like, "I don't know how we got in," and a lot of his responses were predicated with "I think" as opposed to "I know or "I did" or "I saw." It's "I think," like he's trying to - he's hoping - he's guessing, he's hoping he's getting the right answers.
Q: Is this type of interrogation, if you're give someone in John's situation who's got a 65 IQ and the adaptive skills you've described, are they capable of creating a story involving themselves in a crime that they didn't really commit in response to that sort of interrogation?
A: Yes, I think he would be capable of that. I think a person of his ability would be capable of that or of trying -attempting to repeat back details or information that he had been given.
Q: So if the police suggested that this is what he was going to say, he is an individual that would say what they told him to say?
A: I think under some circumstances, he would do that if he thought that - perhaps that there was going to be a lesser punishment or that he was going to get home or even that he was going to get to have a cigarette.
Q: And are there any case studies of instances where mentally retarded people in fact falsely - have falsely confessed to crimes they did not do?
A: Yes, there are numerous case studies that document that.
Q: And is that something that you rely upon in your field?
A: Yes.
Q: People that are mentally retarded in situations where they're being interrogated and told by their interrogator that they're lying and - or perhaps confronted with statements that we know you did it, we have evidence that you did it or along that lines, what would - how would a mentally retarded individual react to that sort of interrogation? And we had earlier talked about stress. What other things would you expect to see?
A: It might create doubt in his own mind as to what happened, and it might cause him to be further - to rethink what he said to try to get out of the situation again, to - particularly, as I said, if he thinks that the consequences are going to be greater if he stays with the story he's told or the consequences are going to be greater if he changes his story to what he thinks that the authority figure wants him to say.
Q: Is that irregardless of what the truth is?
A: Yes
Appellant contends that Dr. Pack's expert opinion was admissible and argues that the trial court erred by excluding this portion of Dr. Pack's testimony. We agree with Appellant that the trial court's stated basis for excluding this testimony - i.e., that it involved the "ultimate issue" at trial - is not relevant to the admissibility inquiry and therefore does not support the trial court's ruling. However, we cannot determine from the record before us whether some or all of Dr. Pack's testimony constituted an expert opinion admissible under the Kentucky Rules of Evidence.
KRE 702 governs the admissibility of expert opinion testimony:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
In Strinaer v. Commonwealth, we interpreted KRE 702 as abrogating the former common law, "ultimate issue" rule and held that:
The real question should not be whether the expert has rendered an opinion as to the ultimate issue, but whether the opini
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|