Reliability in Permissible Evidence, Essay Example

Classifying eyewitness testimony in U.S. court decision

Eyewitness identification should not be used as persuasive evidence. Please explain in detail why it SHOULD NOT be used?

Persuasive evidence might only be deemed reliable in cases of material fact such as DNA evidence due to the high prevalence of error in eyewitness testimony. Bias in testimony is of concern in that a number of mitigating factors such as corroboration, expert testimony personal bias, hearsay, incompetent mental state of victims and proffered knowledge of suspect identity by law enforcement. Exoneration of cases by evidence contrary to eyewitness testimony procured by police line-up has amassed at least 340 cases on record with a large number of those cases with approximately a third based on faulty eyewitness. The impact of the police line-up on the justice system, and the propensity of eyewitnesses to make error is articulated in a trilogy of U.S. court cases, United States v. Wade 504 U.S. 181 (1992) Gilbert v. California 384 U.S. 985 (1966) and Stovall v. Denno 388 U.S. 293 (1967) and rules regarding post indictment, pre-trial line-up: 1) a defendant has a right under the Sixth Amendment to have an attorney present; 2) if an attorney is not present at a post-indictment pre-trial lineup, the eyewitness’s identification of the defendant is inadmissible; yet 3) the State can still use the eyewitness’s courtroom identification of the defendant as evidence of the defendant’s guilt (Wise et al. 2007). Inaccuracy in testimony in the courtroom is later covered in subsequent cases. Enumeration of eyewitness testimony has been sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court and to the end in support of admissibility – even where highly suggestive identification techniques are used if identification is deemed reliable.

Please explain in detail and elaborate and give an example on how you support your position, related to question one.

Nowhere is concern over the fallibility of eyewitness testimony as evidence in consideration of criminal due process more volatile than in capital cases; whereby defendants accused of the crimes of murder, treason or related offenses are put to scrutiny by the court toward determination of guilt and potential conviction by life sentence to prison or death (Jain et al. 2007). Mistaken identification led to Supreme Court of Florida decision to overturn the 1974 murder and rape case, Tibbs v. State of Florida, 337 So.2d 788, 796 (1976) in response to appellate court opinion that insufficient evidence deemed the appellant’s request worthy of consideration for remand and retrial. The reversal of the conviction was reliant upon several factors, yet all pertaining to eyewitness credibility. At issue was the primary witness testimony of the rape victim in the case, whom admitted during cross-examination that she had tried “just about all” types of drugs and including marihuana immediately prior the occurrence of the crime. Hence, mens rea of the complaint party must be weighed in relation to the scope of the offense, and especially when such a punishment is at stake.

Works Cited

Jain, Monika et al. Mitigating the dangers of capital convictions based on eyewitness testimony through treason’s two-witness rule. Journal of criminal law & criminology 97, 3, 761-90 (2001).

Wise, Richard A. et al. A Tripartite Solution to Eyewitness. Journal of criminal law & criminology 97, 3, 807-71 (2007).