Difference between revisions of "Eyewitness Misidentification"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchLine 63: | Line 63: | ||
'''Engaging an Expert Witness:''' Expert Testimony can be used to discredit an eyewitness identification. | '''Engaging an Expert Witness:''' Expert Testimony can be used to discredit an eyewitness identification. | ||
− | ''' | + | |
− | Motion to Suppress:''' | + | '''Motion to Suppress:''' Prosecution unlikely to pursue a case in which the eyewitness is uncertain, however if there are mitigating factors, the defense can submit a Motion to Suppress the identification and exclude the eyewitness' testimony. '''Neil v. Biggers''' (1972)outlines the standard for granting a Motion to Suppress. Factors include: |
+ | *1) Opportunity of the witness to view criminal at time of crime | ||
+ | *2) Witness' degree of tension | ||
+ | *3) Accuracy of the witness' prior description of criminal | ||
+ | *4) Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at confrontation | ||
+ | *5) Length of time between the crime and the confrontation. | ||
+ | (''Neil v. Biggers'' 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972)). | ||
Participation of the Client: In the United States, there are no legal grounds for failing to participate in a lineup, especially if the client is already in custody. Since the client's participation in there is no valid privilege against self-incrimination claim. | Participation of the Client: In the United States, there are no legal grounds for failing to participate in a lineup, especially if the client is already in custody. Since the client's participation in there is no valid privilege against self-incrimination claim. |