Utah Court of Appeals
When should defense counsel avoid calling an eyewitness identification expert? State v. King Explained
Summary
Defendant was convicted of theft and failure to stop at a police officer’s command based on eyewitness identifications. He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present expert testimony on eyewitness identification reliability and objected to courtroom security arrangements.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical strategic question in State v. King: when should defense counsel decline to call an eyewitness identification expert? The court’s analysis provides important guidance for practitioners evaluating this complex tactical decision.
Background and Facts
King was convicted of theft and failure to stop at a police officer’s command after the victim’s wife and a police officer identified him as the person who stole a truck. Both witnesses observed King in daylight, were of the same race as King, and had specific reasons to pay attention to the suspect. However, both witnesses viewed King for only brief periods, and the identifications were made through single-suspect showups rather than lineups.
Key Legal Issues
King claimed his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to present expert testimony about the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Under State v. Clopten, Utah courts recognize that such expert testimony can be helpful to juries, but King’s counsel made a strategic decision not to call an expert.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied the Strickland standard, examining whether counsel’s decision could be considered sound trial strategy. The court analyzed the Clopten factors—circumstances affecting eyewitness reliability—and found that while some factors suggested unreliability (brief viewing time, showup procedures), many more factors supported reliability (daylight observation, same-race identification, lack of weapon or disguise, witnesses’ attention to the event).
Significantly, the court noted that expert testimony “actually makes jurors more likely to convict” when reliability factors favor the identification. Trial counsel reasonably determined that calling an expert would “provide more credibility to the State’s witnesses” rather than help the defense.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that eyewitness identification experts can be double-edged swords. Practitioners must carefully evaluate how the Clopten factors apply in their specific cases before deciding whether to retain such experts. When reliability factors favor the prosecution, expert testimony may backfire by highlighting the strengths rather than weaknesses of the identification. The court’s analysis demonstrates that strategic decisions based on thorough understanding of eyewitness identification law will be protected under the Strickland standard.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. King
Citation
2017 UT App 43
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20130223-CA
Date Decided
March 9, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Trial counsel’s strategic decision not to call an eyewitness identification expert when the expert’s testimony would likely have reinforced the credibility of the State’s witnesses was reasonable trial strategy and did not constitute deficient performance.
Standard of Review
Correctness for ineffective assistance of counsel legal conclusions after deferring to trial court’s factual findings; plain error for unpreserved claims requiring showing of harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court
Practice Tip
Before deciding whether to call an eyewitness identification expert, carefully analyze how the Clopten factors apply to your case—expert testimony can actually strengthen the State’s case when reliability factors favor the identification.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.