Is help on the way for bad eyewitness ID's
If there is one thing DNA has done over the last several years it's demonstrate how unreliable eyewitness identifications are. Out of the 250 exonerations so far, 190 of them have involved mistaken identifications. Social scientists and lawyers have known for years that such identifications are not nearly as accurate as everyone believes. The human brain is not a camera, and identifications and memory are based on a number of external factors. I've written about this before - here and here and for example, and will no doubt continue to do so.
Even with knowledge that eyewitness IDs are flawed, jurors and prosecutors continue to accept them without question. Courts likewise allow identifications, even when the circumstances surrounding the ID are suspect. Years ago the Supreme Court set out guidelines for challenging eyewitness IDs. Those guidelines done almost nothing to limit the use of eyewitness identification in court. The basic premise is that a suggestive identification violates due process. The problem has been in determining what is or is not suggestive. In practice if a witness comes into court and identifies the person, and claims that identification is based on what they saw, it is going to come in.
The Supreme Court may be stepping in. Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote about a case the Court agreed to hear earlier this year - Perry v. New Hampshire. How far they will go is the big question. The question before the Court is extremely limited - whether due process is only implicated when the suggestive circumstances are the result of police conduct.. As a result, the immediate impact of any holding may not be great. The court could have a huge impact by addressing the broader issues in eyewitness ID's, and emphasizing the role of the trial court as the initial "gatekeeper".
There is at least some hope that the tide is turning, and that jurors will be more discriminating in accepting eyewitness testimony. It's probably too much to ask that prosecutors and judges will follow suit, but you can always hope.
