Eye Witness Testimony

472 Words2 Pages
Eye Witness Testimony Criminal Evidence Professor Jonathan Cristall 10 May 2012 Eyewitness Testimony Eyewitness testimony is given a considerable amount of weight in criminal cases by the jury. However, eyewitness testimony is really unreliable. It is easily confused and suggestive. Neil v. Biggers is the case where new rules were set forth for eyewitness identification. This case set forth more guidelines in the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Neil v. Biggers addresses the suggestibility of eyewitness testimony in show-up cases as opposed to the lineup or photo array. By showing up and seeing the suspect, it suggests to the eyewitness that this person is guilty or that the police may have proof against this person. In State v. Moore State v. Wideman, Neil v. Biggers was cited in reference to the identification of the defendants. Moore and Wideman had joint trials and they were identified by an eyewitness who was at her mailbox and saw two men in her neighbors’ backyard. She gave a statement to the police of generic descriptions of two black men. She did not see either man’s face. She was later taken to identify Moore and Wideman, who were the only two people present that were not in official uniforms suggesting to the witness that they were the guilty men. The identification was ruled too suggestive. I feel like eyewitness testimony is too unreliable for the simple reason that the identification is able to be so suggestive. Recently I have been doing a lot of research on wrongful execution, and there have been people wrongfully put to death due to eyewitness testimony. It is a miscarriage of justice for an innocent person to spend one day in jail, it is a tragedy for an innocent person to be put to death. One innocent person punished in any way for the crime of another is one too many. I feel like the rules of eyewitness identification still need
Open Document