With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". work is done once they have ruled proffered evidence admissible or inadmissible” instead of assessing whether the expert’s testimony fits the task at hand). 32 . Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). 33 . Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). 34 . Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). 35 . Cole, supra note 31, at 819-24. 36 . Id. 37 . 928 S.W.2d 550 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (discussing the importance of assessing the reliability of scientific evidence and how trial judges must act as gatekeepers to weed out "junk” science; concluding that the scientific testimony of a psychologist on the reliability of eyewitness identification is relevant and may be admissible). 38 . 354 S.W.3d 425, 435-36 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Esparza, 413 S.W.3d 81, 94

A: holding that any deficiency in counsels failure to object to alleged hearsay testimony that repeated statement of witness regarding identity of murder perpetrator did not prejudice defendant and thus was not ineffective assistance when testimony was cumulative of other eyewitness testimony
B: holding that psychologists testimony on the reliability of eyewitness testimony was both relevant and reliable and thus should have been admitted
C: holding that a specific instruction was unnecessary because eyewitness was crossexamined and the eyewitness testimony was discussed in defense counsels opening statement
D: holding admissible expert testimony concerning factors that may impair eyewitness identification and rejecting that concerning a particular eyewitness credibility and the statistical probability of eyewitness misidentification
B.