[Vision2020] A Check on Bad Eyewitness Identifications

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

------------------------------
December 5, 2012
A Check on Bad Eyewitness Identifications

The Oregon Supreme Court in a unanimous
decision<http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059234.pdf>last
week upended how eyewitness identification is to be used in criminal
trials. The landmark ruling shifts the burden of proof to prosecutors to
show that such identification is sufficiently reliable to be admissible as
evidence at trial. *Misidentification is the country’s leading cause of
wrongful convictions.* By altering the legal standard, Oregon has set an
example that other states and the federal courts would be wise to follow.

Under the previous approach, trial courts had to assume eyewitness
identifications were admissible unless defendants could show that they were
unreliable; trial courts also relied heavily on the eyewitnesses’ reports
of their own reliability even though that was at issue.

In ruling that such evidence should be subject to stricter standards, the
court took into account three decades of scientific research showing that
memory and perception can be highly unreliable. “Because of the alterations
to memory that suggestiveness can cause,” the court said, “it is incumbent
on courts and law enforcement personnel to treat eyewitness memory just as
carefully as they would other forms of trace evidence, like DNA,
bloodstains, or fingerprints, the evidentiary value of which can be
impaired or destroyed by contamination.”

The justices further ruled that, even if the state proves that an
identification is likely to be well-founded, a judge can still bar its use
if the defendant establishes that it might be the result of “suggestive
police procedures.”

The court announced its new approach in a decision dealing with two cases.
In one case involving a robbery at a Safeway store, it found the
identifications admissible because the witnesses gave the police a detailed
description of two suspects, including the defendant, just minutes after
the crime. Hours afterward, when the officer who investigated the robbery
heard about a problem at a nearby restaurant, the men causing the
disturbance matched the descriptions of the Safeway suspects. The police
took them back to the Safeway where they were identified as the
perpetrators and eventually charged with robbery.

But in the second case, the court found that the reliability of the
eyewitness identification — and the suggestiveness of the police procedure
— warranted sending the case back for a new trial. The defendant was found
guilty of murdering a man and shooting his wife at an Oregon campground.
The wife had only a fleeting chance to see the person who shot her husband
after she was critically wounded. She was “under tremendous stress and in
poor physical and mental condition,” which impaired her “ability to encode
information into memory,” the court said.

Two years passed before she made the identification, which happened only
after the police took her to a pretrial hearing to observe the man they
said had been arrested in the shootings and showed her his picture in a
notebook. Under the court’s new approach, that kind of highly suggestive
police procedure is likely to make the identification inadmissible.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121206/0eea0f85/attachment-0001.html>