Eyewitness testamony to be brought before the supreme court today, what do you think?

harvardcrcl.org...

www.thecrimereport.org...


The supreme court today will follow new jersey in it's reexamination of eyewitness testimony and it's validity and admissibility in the conviction of suspects at trial.

Fact - the majority of false convictions have been attributed due to bad eye witness identification of suspects.

Fact - the police rely on eye witness testimony to gain probable cause to arrest a suspect 

Fact - the prosecution focuses on eye witness testimony to gain a conviction of a defendant

Fact - human memory has recently been studied and shown to be poor and easily influenced

Fact - often police attempt to influence an eyewitness into pointing out a suspect they are holding for possible arrest

Question:  should eyewitness identification of a suspect still be admissible absent other evidence?

I thought this would be a great debate topic, not sure how to get it brought over there, but I am curious as to the opinions of the ATS members. This will totally change the way suspects are arrested and convicted.

Imagine if you are the victim of a robbery and the only proof is your testimony as to the identity of your assailant and the officer says, " so what your telling me is your only proof he did it is your ability to recognize him? Sorry we need something more."

sounds like another nail in the coffin of what was once americas justice system..

reply to post by OathKeeper


Well IMO you'd need a little more than just recognition of the suspect..

Many people look very similar and yes, memory isn't always perfect..

Maybe just proving that the suspect was in the area at the time or possesses the clothes you described them wearing or a distinguishing mark like a scar or tattoo.??

reply to post by backinblack


Well eyewitness testimonies on identification include clothing, face, gender, race, height though absent distinguishing marks like tats or scars.

There is even talk of suspects and victims being of different races hurting the ability to give a good identification.... I suppose the idea that 'they all look the same to me' reasoning.

Question: should eyewitness identification of a suspect still be admissible absent other evidence?

Absolutely not.

Eyewitness testimony MUST be corroborated by the facts and circumstances surrounding the scene of the crime. Everyone knows that eyewitness testimony is unreliable as the brain fills in details on it's own if the wirness is unable to fully recall.

reply to post by OathKeeper

Fact - the majority of false convictions have been attributed due to bad eye witness identification of suspects.

My first question would be, Whose "fact" is this. The same corrupt system that has so many false convictions? I don't buy it. Eyewitness testimony may have its issues, but doing away with it gives the system carte blanche. Other evidence can be falsified and/or misleading just as an eyewitness can.

Question: should eyewitness identification of a suspect still be admissible absent other evidence?

Absent all other evidence? That's some truly shaky ground there.

reply to post by Klassified


I don't think anyone is advocating doing away with it.

I think the argument is for strengthening and verifying eyewitness testimony with evidence that corroborates the witness' story.

I'm seeing this as an excuse to install more cameras everywhere.
If eye-witness testimony is invalidated, it's the obvious "solution".

reply to post by subject x


Not necessarily.

An eyewitness could say one thing, but the circumstances discovered at the scene may not fit, or maybe it does. I think the key here is to bolster witness testimony with connected and verifiable evidence also found at the scene of a crime. Police do it all the time.

The problem is with the prosecution and how people have been convicted in COURT by eyewitness testimony that hasn't been corroborated or substantiated by other evidence.

Yet more of the slippery slope of doom news. Let's see how they decide, then howl.

reply to post by thejlxc


That's IF you understand what they are actually deciding.

I believe this has more to do with how the COURTS handle eyewitness testimony. It isn't about doing away with it, or making it inadmissible in court. It's about making sure that the eye witness is reliable in his/her testimony and that the details given match the facts of the case.

reply to post by projectvxn

No argument there.
What better way to bolster eye-witness testimony than to have the whole scene recorded on video.
All the cameras everywhere, recording everything, are there "for our protection". They just don't mention that they're "protecting" us from the very system thay're there to support...

I'm really torn. I know our government will just use this as another excuse to put more cameras up, as another poster said, but I also don't think people should face the death penalty, life in prison, or any considerable punishment over what could be faulty eyewitness testimony. I'm sure many criminals have rightly been taken off the streets due to eyewitnesses, but I can't even fathom being an innocent person in jail or worse because someone falsely identified me and a jury believed them.

I think I'm leaning toward it being NOT admissible in the absence of corroborating evidence.

reply to post by subject x




about being the leading cause of false convictions i will look for exact studies but the studies that have been done took cases where the defendant has been exonerated based on DNA evidence, of those a majority of them have been initially convicted based almost solely on eyewitness testimony. the studies are refereed to in a lot of articles but i will look for the study itself.


you know what? cameras are playing a much larger part in convictions and have a far greater bearing on convictions than eye witness testimony.

The scary part is what subject X brings to the table, is this a move to bring in greater big brother all seeing eyes? Honestly i didn't think of that but hmm very scary.

As it stands now and this is from experience, i will find sources to cite if i can, but having a victim say "Yes he is the one." and point him out is enough for Probable Cause to arrest for the police

having that same witness testify in court to the same is also enough for a conviction, even one to a lesser charge. That is how it stands now.

This can change the entire landscape of criminal investigations all the way through court proceedings. From arrest to trial. People don't realize how big this can become. The reasons behind it however might go deeper. The law enforcement community will be challenged to deal with the change and the prosecutor will have a much harder time. Defense attorneys will love it as will civil liberties groups.

As for myself if it does show that it is unconstitutional and in conflict with the fourteenth amendment than i say go with what the constitution says, and that is the realm of the supreme court, like it or not.

reply to post by drunkennoodle


i do believe that more evidence is needed for a death penalty conviction than just an eye witness. However i can assure you that eyewitness testimony is enough on its own to get a lesser charge to stick.

as far as "absent all other evidence" question. Right now if you say a white man wearing a red shirt, and blue jeans mugged you and the police find a man wearing a red shirt and blue jeans and you look at him and tell the officers yes that is him, it is all good to arrest, Probable Cause to arrest achieved. You then go to the detectives and point him out of a line up or photo array your still on track to convict. then in court you stick to the story and point him out to the jury the conviction will stick, all based solely on you as the victims word and memory.

Is it scary,w ell somewhat, but its all good as it stands now.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by thejlxc

 

That's IF you understand what they are actually deciding.

I believe this has more to do with how the COURTS handle eyewitness testimony. It isn't about doing away with it, or making it inadmissible in court. It's about making sure that the eye witness is reliable in his/her testimony and that the details given match the facts of the case.

Yes the initial issue is how the courts deal with it. But the constitutionality investigation will effect how law enforcement deals with it. It trickles down like this,

If the courts decide it is inadmissible police will no longer have Probable cause to arrest based on what the courts will not uphold. Smart cops who want to keep their jobs and pensions will not arrest based on something that will not hold firm in court. A decline prosecution is as good as a wrongful arrest and opens up law enforcement to civil actions that might not have the department indemnify them, therefor no arrest will be made.

This decision will effect the law from the streets to the judges bench.

so, we can absolutely negate a remote viewer testimony as an eye-witness

even a sober, logical, highly trained individual sees the world through their own Filter in their mind.


i like the idea (i read in sci-fi stories) about professional witnesses, trained to witness the world,
going about in everyday life just as you or i... and with enough of these witnesses in the population the chances a good that 'acts' will be seen by these witnesses' and depositions or court appearances made on most crimes committed in the homeland.