## Facts

- Jon David Weatherred was tried for capital murder arising from the killing of a man involved with Weatherred’s former girlfriend.
- The State’s case relied largely on circumstantial evidence; the only direct evidence placing Weatherred at the scene was eyewitness testimony from two witnesses, N.R. and B.M.
- N.R. (age 12) briefly saw a man from behind in a garage for about three seconds.
- Shortly after the murder, N.R. was shown a group “hunting-party” photograph containing Weatherred and did not identify him.
- About three weeks after the crime, N.R. viewed a six-person photo lineup containing Weatherred and again did not identify him; Weatherred was the only person appearing in both the earlier group photograph and the lineup.
- More than three months after the crime, N.R. attended a live lineup and identified Weatherred for the first time.
- B.M. saw a man in her driveway for about four to ten seconds near the time of the murder.
- Before making formal identifications, B.M. had seen Weatherred’s photograph in a newspaper.
- B.M. selected Weatherred in the group photograph and in the six-person photo lineup, later identified him in the live lineup, and testified at trial with high confidence.
- The defense offered expert testimony from Dr. Kenneth Deffenbacher regarding scientific research on eyewitness identification, including “photo bias” from repeated exposures, memory decline over time after brief viewing, and the lack of correlation between witness confidence and accuracy.
- The trial court excluded the expert testimony under Texas Rule of Evidence 702; Weatherred was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Texas Rule of Evidence 702 by excluding defense expert testimony on factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness identification.
2. Whether excluding the expert testimony was harmful given the central role of the eyewitness identifications in linking Weatherred to the crime.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held the trial court erred by excluding Deffenbacher’s eyewitness-identification expert testimony under Rule 702.
- The court determined the proposed testimony concerned specialized psychological research that could assist jurors in assessing the reliability of the identifications.
- The court rejected the argument that the testimony impermissibly decided credibility, reasoning the expert would describe reliability factors rather than opine that the witnesses were lying or mistaken.
- The court concluded the error was harmful because the eyewitness identifications were the only direct evidence placing Weatherred at the scene.
- The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony is admissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 702 when specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding evidence or deciding a fact in issue.
- Expert testimony on eyewitness-identification reliability may be admissible where it explains empirically supported factors (e.g., repeated photo exposure, brief observation, delay) that are not necessarily within ordinary juror experience.
- Expert testimony does not improperly supplant the jury’s role when it provides a framework for evaluating identification evidence rather than a direct opinion that a particular witness is correct or incorrect.
- Excluding defense evidence may warrant reversal when the excluded expert testimony bears directly on the only direct evidence connecting the defendant to the offense and the exclusion affects substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals reversed Weatherred’s capital murder conviction because the trial court improperly excluded defense expert testimony on eyewitness-identification reliability, and the exclusion was harmful given that the identifications were the only direct evidence placing Weatherred at the scene.


Weatherred v. State, 963 S.W.2d 115 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998)