4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 13 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from People v. Santiago.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Santiago Anchor | green | “a trial court may, in its discretion, admit, limit, or deny the testimony of an expert on the reliability of eyewitness identification, weighing a request to introduce such expert testimony 'against other relevant factors, such as the centrality of the identification issue and t…” | 4 |
| 2 | People v. Abney | green | “the level of violence of the interaction event violence, the length of time of the incident event duration, and the presence of a weapon or other attention-calling object weapon focus.” | 3 |
| 3 | People v. Oddone | green | “defendant sought, and was denied, a frye hearing on that issue” | 3 |
| 4 | People v. Nazario | green | “does not constitute corroborating evidence of the identification for purposes of determining whether expert testimony regarding the accuracy of an eyewitness identification is admissible” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.