State of Tennessee v. Shaughn Walker - Dissent

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a continuance and additional funding for an eyewitness identification expert. This case rested almost entirely on the victim’s identification of the Defendant as the perpetrator. Upon being notified by defense counsel the first day of trial that Dr. David Ross would not testify unless additional funds were provided, the trial court was understandably frustrated and concerned about further delay in this case. However, for the reasons that follow, I do not believe the trial court’s concerns about delay and expense warranted the severity of the sanction imposed on the Defendant. Because this case hinged on the victim’s identification and because the Defendant had already demonstrated a “particularized need” for state-funded expert assistance in the field of eyewitness identification, I believe the trial court erred in not granting a continuance and additional funds for a new expert. At the very least, I believe the trial court erred in not allowing testimony in some form from Dr. Jeffrey Neuschatz, who was available if the trial court had simply granted a one-day continuance. Because these errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, I would reverse the Defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.