In People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, the California Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in failing to admit the testimony of an eyewitness identification expert. There, the non-African-American witnesses did not have clear views of the defendant, did not immediately identify him from a photographic lineup immediately after the crime, or else never identified him before trial, and were equivocal in their identification of the defendant at trial. Indeed, one prosecution witness, who like the defendant was African-American, testified at trial that she was certain defendant was not the shooter. (People v. McDonald, supra, at p. 360.) And, six witnesses testified that the defendant was out of state at the time of the shooting. The California Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the expert testimony because the matter hinged only on witness identification and the evidence was far from clear because of the witnesses' discontinuous observations due to parked and moving cars, the suddenness of the event, the witnesses' overestimation of the duration of the event, the cross-racial nature of the identifications, and the failure or uncertainty of several witnesses in selecting defendant's photograph from police displays. (Id. at pp. 375-376.)