noting that “[i]t is easy for the line between specific observations and expert generalizations to become blurred,” and “[t]he testimony of a combined expert/ percipient witness has unique persuasive value”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “[i]t is easy for the line between specific observations and expert generalizations to become blurred,” and “[t]he testimony of a combined expert/ percipient witness has unique persuasive value”
- criticizing expert testimony “presented in conclusory form . . . [that] amounts to little more than vouching for the Commonwealth’s position”
- “In assessing whether expert evidence strays over the line . . . the sole touchstone should not be whether a witness uses any particular figure of speech”
- “[I]n determining whether particular expert testimony is lawful, the better practice is to focus the analysis on whether the evidence is explanatory”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Gillerman, J.
(concurring). I concur in part one of the majority opinion only in so far as it affirms the conviction on the authority of Commonwealth v. Woods, 419 Mass. 366, 374-376 (1995), and Commonwealth v. Rivera, 425 Mass. 633, 645-646 (1997). I join the majority in part two.