Before DNA evidence an eyewitness testimony was a pivotal turning point in a case and often the only evidence offered to identify a suspect. The most common method of identification of an eyewitness’s account is a line up. These come in different forms from: verbal, pictures, to actual people present in a room. The idea behind these varied forms of identification allows less bias if someone had only had one sense to identify a suspect. For example: someone who was blindfolded could use a verbal line up but visually would not have seen anything. Also now we use false line ups that do not have the suspect present in order to further qualify the witness’s account of the events.
A variety of scrutiny has changed the rules and regulations for …show more content…
Doe had a lineup within a similar time frame. The difference here is that Ms. Doe identified her potential suspect due to his picture being the only mugshot found within everyone lineup she was shown. The police did use multiple lineups, including blanks, but failed to eliminate the bias of Mr. Smith’s mugshot photo. All of the photos needs to be in the same color, quality and generally comparable so that a witness is not more apt to choose the answer based on other minute details because it can cause them to unintentionally change key facts in their story so that they feel like they are being useful to the police …show more content…
There have been any articles that cite the problems with eyewitness testimony especially the issues surrounding this case. This case exhibits examples of cross-gender identification, cross-racial identification, and improper violation of visual lineup standards. All of which are very unlikely for Ms. Doe to have performed due to her biological, social, and self-identification purposes. This shows that the eyewitness testimony of Ms. Doe is an unreliable source of identification. Statistically it is more likely that Ms. Doe falsely identified my client, Mr. Smith, due to his opposite gender and opposite
A variety of scrutiny has changed the rules and regulations for …show more content…
Doe had a lineup within a similar time frame. The difference here is that Ms. Doe identified her potential suspect due to his picture being the only mugshot found within everyone lineup she was shown. The police did use multiple lineups, including blanks, but failed to eliminate the bias of Mr. Smith’s mugshot photo. All of the photos needs to be in the same color, quality and generally comparable so that a witness is not more apt to choose the answer based on other minute details because it can cause them to unintentionally change key facts in their story so that they feel like they are being useful to the police …show more content…
There have been any articles that cite the problems with eyewitness testimony especially the issues surrounding this case. This case exhibits examples of cross-gender identification, cross-racial identification, and improper violation of visual lineup standards. All of which are very unlikely for Ms. Doe to have performed due to her biological, social, and self-identification purposes. This shows that the eyewitness testimony of Ms. Doe is an unreliable source of identification. Statistically it is more likely that Ms. Doe falsely identified my client, Mr. Smith, due to his opposite gender and opposite