This is not your usual “eyewitness identification” piece. The authors’ idea – using an ophthalmologist as an expert — is different. Before the witness viewed the lineup or other identification process, did the police officers inquire whether the witness had a prescription for corrective lenses? This is an area lawyers may not be exploring.

Some crime victims say they remember every detail of the incident. Other victims barely remember what happened. Does a person’s memory for a traumatic event improve and become more complete in the days after the trauma? Is the memory for a traumatic event “burned into the brain” and immune to being forgotten? Researchers Daniel Reisberg and Kathy Pezdek provide an overview of current science.

Presented by Lisa Steele, Steele & Assoc., Shrewsbury, MA

Eyewitness identification is known to be very unreliable. According to the Innocence Project, 70% of 354 DNA-based exonerations nationwide involved mistaken eyewitness identifications. This page contains case-based tools and guidelines for best practices in eyewitness identification.

Imagine that a security camera video shows someone committing a robbery. The “witness” does not see it live but only views the video and then identifies the perpetrator. Called a “non-eyewitness identification,” this identification is a departure from a traditional eyewitness identification because it allows a person who was not at the scene and did not observe the event to put forward an opinion about what a video depicts. How can advocates prevent judges from admitting the less reliable non-eyewitness identifications into evidence?

Police officers often rely on facial recognition searches as the primary piece of evidence tying a defendant to a crime, and thus defendants should be permitted to challenge the facial recognition search process. The limited case law on the discoverability, reliability, or admissibility of facial recognition is inconsistent at best. Based on the risk of misidentification, Clare Garvie suggests several steps defense counsel should consider pursuing in facial recognition cases.

Reports and other resources on eyewitness identification.

1-08-2073 (Ill. App.)

Citing wrongful convictions due to mistaken eyewitness identification and the urgent need to reform traditional police eyewitness identification procedures, NACDL, in conjunction with the MacArthur Justice Center of the Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern University School of Law, filed a civil lawsuit against the Illinois police departments who participated in a controversial study of eyewitnesses and police lineups.

Scientifically Sound Approaches to Suppression in Eyewitness Identification Cases

The Manson v. Brathwaite test for the admissibility of challenged eyewitness identification evidence is flawed. As a result, courts routinely allow the admission of tainted identification evidence. Decided in 1977, Manson is not in accord with subsequent scientific research into eyewitness fallibility. Defense attorneys must adopt creative strategies to seek suppression and force courts to consider both the science and Manson’s flaws.

With increasing frequency since the 1970s, psychologists have been admitted as expert witnesses to educate factfinders about the many facets of eyewitness memory. The authors provide an overview of three distinct topics about which eyewitness experts typically testify: eyewitness identification, repressed memory, and child witnesses.

Previous litigation efforts related to eyewitness identification.

Because social media has reached a point of near saturation, people now have access to what seems like endless photographs of people in their community, and many witnesses have begun to use this as a resource to conduct their own criminal investigations. Jurors should be educated about how exposure to social media images may have affected the eyewitness evidence being brought before them.

The authors surveyed law enforcement officers(1) to test their knowledge about memory, (2) to test their knowledge of how factors present during crimes (weapons, disguises) can affect eyewitness accuracy, and (3) to determine how they conduct eyewitness interviews and identification procedures. According to the survey results, most officers do not conduct proper eyewitness interviews and identification procedures, and have limited knowledge of eyewitness factors. These deficits suggest a framework for a defense attorney’s cross-examination of officers and eyewitnesses at hearings and trials.

It is now conventional wisdom that eyewitness identifications can be notoriously unreliable. But what about identifications by witnesses who believe the perpetrator is someone familiar? Are their identifications reliable? Empirical evidence and an array of DNA exonerations have confirmed that familiarity does not eliminate misidentification problems. Consequently, courts should permit expert testimony to assist the jury in properly assessing the reliability of all eyewitness evidence, regardless of whether the witness claimed the suspect was familiar.