tcdla - Voice For The Defense Online

In cases when convictions have beenoverturned because of new evidence,the most common reason for theoriginal convictions were inaccurateeyewitness identifications of people"...eyewitness misidentikalior, is the principle factor in oser 11,aIf ofdl \\'rongfi~l felony con15ctions." (Yarme); 1990, p 289)"Mistaken identifications are the greatest single cause of wronghllcon\ictions."(\Veils & Lofhrs, 1984)Attacking the Admissibilityof the Government's EyewitnessIdentification TestimonyThe United States Supreme Court has advised that "Reliability is thelinclipi~~detennirliag the ndnussibili5 of ide~~tificatioa testimon)?'.11Ifl~sor1 U. Brnthwnite, 432 US. 98, 114 (1977). In Xeil u. Biggers,409 U.S. 188 (1972), the S~~prenle Cou~t listed the facton: to be consideredin detern~ining the reliability of a pre-trial identification. Thesecriteria include: (1) the opportunity of the nitness to view the crin~inalat the tune of the clime; (2) thc witness' degree of attention; (3) theaccuracy of the wihless' prior description of the c~iniinal; (4) the levelof certainty demonstnted by the nitness at the co~lfi.onteh; and (5)the length of time behveeeen the crinle and the co~lfi.ontation. See UnitedStatma Rogers, 126 E3d 655 (51h Cir. 1997).\Vl~en the constih~tionality of a pl~oto artagorsin~ilarpre-trial identificationprocedure is challenged, the due process clause of the UnitedStales Cotlstitution requires the court to collduct a hvo-step ilquily.The court nllrsf firs determine wl~etl~er the pl~oto army or procedurew;cs iepernussibly suggestive. If so, the court proceeds to determinewhether the idenrifications were ~neverthcless reliable imnder a "totalltyd the ckcumstances" ntialysis. Evidence of a pretrial photogq~lucidentification ~vill be inadmissable only if the pl~otog~aphic irlentificalion procedure is so suggestive as to rise to a my substantial likelihoodof irreparable nlisidentification. Simro~n u. UrritedStntes, 390U.S. 377, 384 (1968); UrritedStcrtes u. dlerk, 794 12d 950, 957 (5"lCil: 1986)In considering the suggestiveness of a photo arm) for cxunple, thecourl cansitlets the size of the mu!: its manner of pl-csen$tion by officersand the details of the photos themselves.A defendant's right to due process includes his right not to be victimizedby suggestive police identification procedures, inch~ding suggestivedisplays of pl~otogclpl~s that create avely substantial likelihoodof irrepaublc ~~~iside~~tificatio~~. Sirrrrrrorrs u. U~rited States, 390 US.377 (1968); UrritedStrrtes a dlerk, 794 E2d 950 (5Ih Cir. 1986).Pdwe to object to a suggestke in-court identification is groundsfor ineffective assistance of counsel. See UnitedStntes u. Mller, 229E3d 649 (7" Cir. 2000). See also IViikersorr a Coin, 233 E3d 886Cir. 2000) (hit on questionQ eyewitness violated ConfrontationCl;~use). EReferencesLoftus, E.E (1979).Qeriiitrress Testi~rlollj!Ha~vard Uni ersity PressLoftus, E.E and Doyle, J.M (1992)Epruitr~ess Tcsti~r~o~ql:The hlichie Con~pan): 2nd Ed.Wells, G.I.. & Loftus, E.E (1984)Eyeruitrress Testi~rro?y:Ps~chological Perspectiues,Campbridge Uuiversity Press.Yuille, Jolu~ C; Tollestrup, Patricia A.JorrrrrfliofAppliedP~ycholog~~ 1'0175, Jun 1990, pp. 268-273Yameb A. Daniel (1990).U~rderstm~di~g Police andPolice IVork: P~:~~chological issrres.New l'ork Unive~sity Press.U.S. Department ofJustice (1999).E~e~eitt~essEuide~lce: A Guide for ~ruBrforce~nerrl.The entire seminar is on audio cassette for only $85.00contact the TCDLA home officeOClOBER 2001 W.1CDLA.COM VOICE FOR THE DEFENSB 23