People v. Rosario

2 Citing cases

  1. Bell v. Ercole

    No. 05 CV 4532(ERK) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2011)   Cited 3 times

    While I do not burden this opinion with a string cite from his opinion, I do cite a number of additional New York cases, particularly several by the Appellate Division Second Department, which refused to allow false confession expert testimony. See, e.g., People v. Days, 817 N.Y.S.2d 535, 31 A.D.3d 574 (2nd Dep't 2006); People v. Ragsdale, 889 N.Y.S.2d 681, 68 A.D.3d 897 (2nd Dep't 2009); People v. Green, 683 N.Y.S.2d 597, 250 A.D.2d 143 (3d Dep't 1998); People v. Crews, 18 Misc. 3d 1120(A), 2008 WL 199887 (Suffolk Cty. 2008); People v. Rosario, 20 Misc. 3d 401 (Queens Cty. 2008). More significantly, the issues related to the admissibility of expert testimony generally, and to this testimony in particular, make clear that each step in determining the admissibility involves the exercise of discretion.

  2. Commonwealth v. Pugh

    J-A29010-12 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jul. 11, 2013)

    Id. at 1242. Additionally, in People v. Rosario, 20 Misc.3d 401 (Ny. Sup. 2008), there was no evidence presented that the defendant had been subjected to coercive interrogation techniques. Therefore, the court excluded the testimony, inter alia, as irrelevant.