Difference between revisions of "Eyewitness Misidentification"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 80: Line 80:
 
Misidentification is in the category of a "reasonable doubt" defense, which means that the defender is contesting that there is at least a reasonable doubt that the crime was not committed by the defendant. In order to achieve reasonable doubt, focus on weakening the credibility of an eyewitness opinion. Some factors for devising questioning:  
 
Misidentification is in the category of a "reasonable doubt" defense, which means that the defender is contesting that there is at least a reasonable doubt that the crime was not committed by the defendant. In order to achieve reasonable doubt, focus on weakening the credibility of an eyewitness opinion. Some factors for devising questioning:  
  
- Was the perpetrator the eyewitness knew before the offense?  
+
* Was the perpetrator the eyewitness knew before the offense?  
- Did the eyewitness only have a brief time in order to identify the perpetrator?
+
* Did the eyewitness only have a brief time in order to identify the perpetrator?
- Were the eyewitness and the perpetrator of different races?  
+
* Were the eyewitness and the perpetrator of different races?  
- How far away was the eyewitness from the perpetrator during the time of the viewing?
+
* How far away was the eyewitness from the perpetrator during the time of the viewing?
- Did the viewing occur during the day or night?  
+
* Did the viewing occur during the day or night?  
- Does the eyewitness have good vision?  
+
* Does the eyewitness have good vision?  
- What were the lighting conditions of the viewing?  
+
* What were the lighting conditions of the viewing?  
- Did the perpetrator use a deadly weapon that might have caused fear or distract the eyewitness' attention from the perpetrator's actions?
+
* Did the perpetrator use a deadly weapon that might have caused fear or distract the eyewitness' attention from the perpetrator's actions?
- Did the eyewitness ever change the description of the perpetrator at any point?  
+
* Did the eyewitness ever change the description of the perpetrator at any point?  
- During the time of the identification, how was the client displayed - ie. showups, line-ups, photo displays
+
* During the time of the identification, how was the client displayed - ie. showups, line-ups, photo displays
- How long after the event was the identification made?  
+
* How long after the event was the identification made?  
- Was the perpetrator in disguise?  
+
* Was the perpetrator in disguise?  
-
+
*
- Does the client have any distinguishing features that the perpetrator did not have?
+
* Does the client have any distinguishing features that the perpetrator did not have?
- Did the client have any contact with the eyewitness prior to/after the event that would cause the eyewitness to confuse contact with the client with the criminal event?  
+
* Did the client have any contact with the eyewitness prior to/after the event that would cause the eyewitness to confuse contact with the client with the criminal event?  
- What did the investigators do or say that would improperly influence the eyewitness' identification?  
+
* What did the investigators do or say that would improperly influence the eyewitness' identification?  
- What was said between the investigators working on the case and the eyewitness? What kinds of instructions were given during the interaction?  
+
* What was said between the investigators working on the case and the eyewitness? What kinds of instructions were given during the interaction?
 
 
 
 
  
 
== Case Studies ==
 
== Case Studies ==

Revision as of 10:16, 7 April 2010