Difference between revisions of "Eyewitness Misidentification"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 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:''' The prosecution is more likely to bring charges in cases in which the eyewitnesses is certain than in cases in which the eyewitness is not. If the decision is made to prosecute, the defense can submit a motion to suppress the identification evidence on the grounds that the eyewitness is uncertain. The decision made in Neil v. Biggers (1972) lays out the judicial guidelines for the motion to suppress based on whether or not the witness is certain. In the cases in which the witness is certain, the motion to suppress almost never succeeds. (Bradfield 2002, 117)  
+
'''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.  

Revision as of 16:08, 21 May 2010