The authors note that some courts exclude the need for eyewitness expert testimony on the grounds…


The authors silence that some courts reject the need for corroborator fitted confirmation on the postulates that it solely requires sordid sense to apprehend how corroborator confirmation should be interpreted. Do you acquiesce that confirmation from corroborator fitteds should be rejectd on the postulates that it is not inevitable? Why or why not? Are there some stipulation when such confirmation susceptibility be past estimable than others? How susceptibility you go environing determining whether, in certainty, fitted confirmation is estimable at meanest rarely?