Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Postby Sarah » Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:05 pm

Mistaken Eyewitness Identification
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Postby Numbers » Fri May 13, 2016 2:09 pm

http://www.innocenceproject.org/kansas- ... onviction/

Kansas Gov. Brownback Signs Law to Prevent Witness Misidentification, Top Contributor to Wrongful Conviction

(Topeka, KS – May 11, 2016) Kansas Governor Sam Brownback held a bill-signing ceremony today in the capital and signed into law bipartisan legislation aimed at preventing witness misidentification, the number one contributor to wrongful conviction proven by DNA evidence.

The new law will require all Kansas law enforcement agencies to adopt written policies on witness identification procedures, and recommends that those policies include the following best practices, which have been scientifically proven to protect against witness misidentification:

1. Blind/Blinded Administration: The officer administering the lineup is unaware of the suspect’s identity, or if that is not practical, the administrator is “blinded” using a technique such as the folder shuffle method, which prevents him or her from seeing which lineup member is being viewed by the witness. Blind/blinded administration prevents unintended cues or suggestiveness in the procedure.

2. Witness Instructions: Prior to the procedure, witnesses should be instructed that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup, and that the investigation will continue regardless of whether an identification is made

3. Proper Use of Non-Suspect Fillers: Non-suspect fillers used in the lineup should match the witness’ description of the perpetrators and should be selected such that no member of the lineup stands out.

4. Confidence Statements: Immediately following the lineup procedure, the officer conducting the procedure should ask the witness to describe his or her confidence in the identification made and create a written statement documenting verbatim what the witness said.

These best practices are recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Innocence Project and many other organizations....
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri May 13, 2016 2:33 pm

Sarah wrote:Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Oh boy
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Postby Numbers » Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:54 am

Innocence Project Salutes Alaska’s New Framework for Eyewitness Identification Evidence

http://www.innocenceproject.org/innocen ... -evidence/

In a sweeping advisory opinion that promises substantial new protections for the wrongfully accused and for criminal defendants generally, the Supreme Court of Alaska recently implemented a new framework for determining the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence in that state. The June 17 decision, delivered in Arron N. Young v. State, highlights the vast body of social science research on eyewitness evidence and its role in wrongful convictions. The Innocence Project has long advocated reform of the way courts treat identification evidence, which is now known to be the leading contributing factor to wrongful conviction; of the 342 exonerations established through post-conviction DNA testing, 71 percent involved a misidentification by at least one eyewitness.

Alaska’s recent ruling in Young departs from a decades-old legal framework established by the United States Supreme Court in Manson v. Brathwaite (1977), which is now widely rejected by the scientific community. ...

Despite the scientific critiques of the Manson framework, courts across all jurisdictions have been slow to recognize its failings. As noted by the Young court, Alaska adopted the Manson test wholesale in 1979 “without reference to whether its assumptions were scientifically valid.” In fact, not until the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued its landmark decision in the case of State v. Henderson in 2011, which created a scientifically informed test for the admissibility of eyewitness evidence based largely on the arguments of friend-of-the-court advocacy by the Innocence Project, did a single state reject the Manson test. Soon after, the high court of Oregon—in State v. Lawson (2012)—followed in New Jersey’s footsteps. With last month’s decision in Young, the Supreme Court of Alaska—citing the parallel trends of wrongful convictions secured through erroneous identifications, the mounting social science research findings and its sister courts’ dissatisfaction with Manson—now joins those jurisdictions in rejecting the outdated case for “not adequately protect[ing] the right to due process under the Alaska Constitution.”

...
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Postby Numbers » Tue Aug 09, 2016 2:46 pm

http://www.innocenceproject.org/nebrask ... on-reform/

The best practices that are now law in Nebraska and elsewhere require an independent lineup administrator who is not aware of the suspect identity, instructions for the eyewitness that the real perpetrator may or may not be present, placement of non-suspect fillers in the lineup that match the witness’s description of the suspect and the collection of a confidence statement immediately following the identification. The practices are recommended by the Innocence Project and many other organizations.
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Postby Numbers » Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:50 pm

Connecticut Supreme Court Limits In-court Identification in Light of the Danger of Misidentification

The {Connecticut Supreme} Court in Dickson was “hard-pressed to imagine a more suggestive identification procedure” than an in-court identification. As such, it reversed its prior decision, State v. Smith, which held that in-court identifications should only be excluded when tainted by an impermissibly suggestive out-of-court identification. In Dickson, the Court held that in-court identifications will be permitted only if the witness had previously made a positive identification in a nonsuggestive out-of-court identification procedure–determined by the court on a case-by-case basis–or there is another “good reason” to allow the in-court identification (e.g., when identity is not an issue or the eyewitness was known to the defendant). Importantly, the Court made clear that in-court identifications would not be permitted where an eyewitness previously failed to positively identify the defendant in an out-of-court procedure, finding: “The state is not entitled to conduct an unfair procedure merely because a fair procedure failed to produce the desired result.”


http://www.innocenceproject.org/ct-supr ... -court-id/
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Aug 29, 2016 4:33 pm

We have to distinguish two situations - 1. the eyewitness sees a stranger commit a crime and then tries to ID the stranger who he has seen only that one time, and 2. the eyewitness sees someone he or she already knows ("I saw my brother-in-law pull the trigger"). I would assume that the latter situation lends itself to more reliable identification.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3052
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Postby Numbers » Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:49 am

Justice Department Issues New Guidance On Securing Eyewitness IDs

"The Justice Department is issuing new guidance to federal agents on how to secure eyewitness identifications, an initiative designed to reflect decades of scientific research and bolster public confidence in the criminal justice system, NPR has learned.

The policy has two major components: It directs U.S. investigators to document or record an eyewitness's confidence in an identification at the very moment the ID is made, and it encourages federal agents to conduct "blind" or "blinded" photo arrays of suspects in which the agent leading the session doesn't know which photo represents the prime suspect."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... itness-ids
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Postby Numbers » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:22 am

"In an article on Thursday, The Marshall Project delved into the practice of courtroom identifications, when the prosecutor in a criminal trial has the witness point out the perpetrator in court to great dramatic effect.

For the past five years, the Innocence Project has worked to limit the use of in-court identifications, warning that the practice is unreliable, since the witness will doubtlessly point to the person being prosecuted, and highly suggestive, since jurors often interpret the identification as irrefutable evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

“It’s injecting a whole lot of prejudice because jurors find it incredibly powerful,” Innocence Project Senior Staff Attorney Karen Newirth told the Marshall Project.

Of the 350 DNA exonerations to date, 71 percent involved eyewitness misidentification. Of that 71 percent, more than half involved an incorrect in-court identification.

Massachusetts and Connecticut have already limited the practice to cases in which witnesses have previously identified the perpetrator in a lineup or the identity of the perpetrator is not contested. A case before the Colorado Supreme Court might cause the state to follow suit. ..."

https://www.innocenceproject.org/courtr ... uggestive/
Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. {Paraphrase of Fed. Rules of Evidence 702c}
Numbers
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:13 pm

Numbers wrote:"In an article on Thursday, The Marshall Project delved into the practice of courtroom identifications, when the prosecutor in a criminal trial has the witness point out the perpetrator in court to great dramatic effect.

For the past five years, the Innocence Project has worked to limit the use of in-court identifications, warning that the practice is unreliable, since the witness will doubtlessly point to the person being prosecuted, and highly suggestive, since jurors often interpret the identification as irrefutable evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

“It’s injecting a whole lot of prejudice because jurors find it incredibly powerful,” Innocence Project Senior Staff Attorney Karen Newirth told the Marshall Project.

Of the 350 DNA exonerations to date, 71 percent involved eyewitness misidentification. Of that 71 percent, more than half involved an incorrect in-court identification.

Massachusetts and Connecticut have already limited the practice to cases in which witnesses have previously identified the perpetrator in a lineup or the identity of the perpetrator is not contested. A case before the Colorado Supreme Court might cause the state to follow suit. ..."

https://www.innocenceproject.org/courtr ... uggestive/



I can't believe that this is allowed in the absence of a prior ID in a line up - "Now can you tell us who you saw commit the crime? - Was it the judge, someone on the jury, one of the lawyers, the bailiff, the stenographer, someone out in the audience, or - maybe - the defendant?????"
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3052
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm


Return to Fix the System

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest