People v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “After Garrison's trial, our supreme court "clarified the standard that distinguishes lay testimony from expert testimony," [ People v. ] Howard-Walker , [--- P.3d ----, 2017 COA 81M ] ¶ 50 [ (Colo. App. filed June 15, 2017) ], in three opinions: Marsh v. People , 2017 CO 10M , 389 P.3d 100 ; Venalonzo v. People , 2017 CO 9 , ¶¶ 17-25, 388 P.3d 868 ; and People v. Ramos , 2017 CO 6 , 388 P.3d 888 . Take the standard first. To determine "whether testimony is lay testimony under CRE 701 or expert testimony under CRE 702, the trial court must look to the basis for the opinion." Venalonzo , ¶ 23. Then consider its reasoning. To distinguish between lay and expert testimony, "the proper inquiry is not whether a witness draws on her personal experiences to inform her testimony; all witnesses rely on their personal experience when testifying." Id. at ¶ 22. Rather, "the nature of the experiences that could form the opinion's basis ... determines whether the testimony is lay or expert opinion." So, expert testimony "is that which goes beyond the realm of common experience and requires experience, skills, or knowledge that the ordinary person would not have. " Id. The supreme court recognized that this "distinction can be a difficult one." Id. at ¶ 24. To be sure, "[t]his is particularly the case when the witness is a police officer." Howard-Walker , ¶ 51.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Manivannan

2. “The common knowledge and experience of an ordinary person have become one marker of the boundary separating lay from expert testimony. This case involves lay witness testimony about e-mail. So, one might wonder whether this ubiquitous person would be aware that • the record of each e-mail transmission includes an Internet Protocol (IP) address from which the transmission initiated; • the IP address can be linked to an Internet service provider (ISP); and • in turn, the ISP can often trace the IP address to the physical address of a particular ISP customer? Despite the dramatic increase in use of e-mail, we join the few jurisdictions to have addressed this question and conclude that such a person would not be aware of these facts, at least in the combination used by the prosecution to explain how the investigation began with charges against the victim, but led to evidence of criminal acts by defendant, Lawson P. Garrison.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Manivannan

3. “If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Manivannan