Difference between revisions of "Eyewitness Misidentification"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 60: Line 60:
 
* '''Records:''' Investigators should maintain a clear record of every lineup, not just the one that resulted in identification of a suspect.  Additionally, identification should be video recorded whenever possible.  Recording benefits both the defense and the prosecution.  In the event of misconduct, the defense has visual evidence.  On the other hand, the prosecution may show the jury that the procedures were legitimate and aboveboard.  
 
* '''Records:''' Investigators should maintain a clear record of every lineup, not just the one that resulted in identification of a suspect.  Additionally, identification should be video recorded whenever possible.  Recording benefits both the defense and the prosecution.  In the event of misconduct, the defense has visual evidence.  On the other hand, the prosecution may show the jury that the procedures were legitimate and aboveboard.  
  
== Practical Considerations for the Defender (Wells, Nieman Website) ==
+
== Practical Considerations for the Defender ==
  
Engaging a Witness to Testify Eyewitness Misidentification: It is possible to find academics, such as Gary Wells, who have published articles on the topic of eyewitness misidentification. Especially in the case in which inappropriate pre-trial suggestion has occurred, expert testimony on the vague nature of eyewitness identification can be useful in discrediting the witness.  
+
'''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:''' 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)  
  
 
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 15:53, 21 May 2010