It’s one of the oldest courtroom gambits in America, the Perry Mason moment: a
prosecutor in a criminal trial asks a key witness if he sees the person who
committed the crime anywhere in the room. Pause. The witness turns and points
to the defendant, as the jurors take it all in.
But this enduring practice, dating back to colonial
courthouses, has come under fire in the last few years as an often unreliable
tool that has no place in a 21st century trial, reported The Marshall Project.
Citing a vast body of research on the fallibility of
eyewitness testimony in general, questions are now being raised specifically
about in-court identification. Some experts say the tactic is unduly
suggestive, ineffectively tests a witness’s memory, and provides more
theatrical flourish than probative evidence. They also say that the process
leaves room for error.
Massachusetts and Connecticut have already limited the use
of this approach. In both states, the main concern was that the witness in the
courtroom was making the identification for the first time, and had not
previously picked the defendant out of a standard lineup or photo array. In
some cases, the witness may be making the courtroom identification weeks—or
even years—after the crime took place.
A 2016 state supreme court decision in Connecticut held that
witnesses cannot be asked for an in-court identification unless they knew the
defendant before witnessing the crime or have already successfully identified
the defendant in an out-of-court procedure, or the perpetrator’s identity is
not contested.
In Massachusetts in 2014, the state’s top court largely
banned the practice for cases in which witnesses had been anything short of
unequivocal in identifying the defendant before the trial. It’s possible that
Colorado will soon be joining them.
The push to restrict in-court identification began roughly
five years ago with efforts by The Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal
organization that seeks to exonerate the wrongly convicted. The group, which
hopes to continue its efforts around the country, has kept data on DNA
exonerations in the U.S. since 1989. It reported that 71 percent of those
wrongful convictions have involved some kind of mistaken eyewitness
identification, both in and out of court. Of that 71 percent, more than half
involved an incorrect in-court identification.
Innocence Project lawyers contend that first-time in-court
identification increases the risk of wrongful conviction. They argue that the
powerful theatrics of pointing to the defendant can sometimes overcome the
shortcomings of a weak case.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment