# State v. Schutz

> Supreme Court of Iowa · May 28, 1998 · 579 N.W.2d 317

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9535004

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Terry Eugene SCHUTZ, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** May 28, 1998
- **Citations:** 579 N.W.2d 317; 1998 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 124; 1998 WL 268788
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Carter
- **Judges:** Andreasen, Carter, McGiverin
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9535004

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding impressive studies regarding eyewitness identification required reversal of per se rule of exclusion
- holding admission of expert witness on eyewitness identification within sound discretion of the court
- noting the degree of certainty expressed by the expert goes to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility

## Opinion text

*321 CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The rule approved by a majority of this court in State v. Galloway, 275 N.W.2d 736 (Iowa 1979), excluding expert testimony concerning the reliability of eyewitness identification was sound and should not now be abandoned.
One of the reasons expressed by this court’s majority for excluding such evidence was:
Explanation of the scientifically identified mechanisms which bring about memory decay may be of academic interest, but it is of little aid to the jury in judging reliability of the particular eye witness identification before them....
Galloway, 275 N.W.2d at 741 . The Galloway majority also expressed the view that the subject of such opinions is not beyond the knowledge and experience of the typical trial juror. Id.
These observations are valid grounds for excluding this category of expert testimony irrespective of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. I would affirm the district court.
MeGIVERIN, C.J., joins this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9535004. Public record. Not legal advice.