Eyewitness Misidentification And Wrongful Convictions
🔍 Understanding Eyewitness Misidentification
Causes of Misidentification:
Poor lighting or visibility
Cross-racial identification difficulties
Improper police procedures (e.g., suggestive lineups)
Stress or trauma of the event
Memory contamination (post-event information)
Legal Standards Affected:
Due Process Clause (5th & 14th Amendments)
Right to a fair trial
Rules of evidence (Federal and State)
🧾 Key Cases Involving Eyewitness Misidentification & Wrongful Conviction
1. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)
Facts:
A woman who was raped identified Biggers in a show-up (one-on-one) identification, seven months after the incident. Biggers was convicted based largely on her testimony.
Issue:
Was the identification procedure so suggestive that it violated due process?
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but established a five-factor test to assess the reliability of eyewitness identifications.
Key Factors:
Opportunity to view the criminal
Witness’s degree of attention
Accuracy of prior description
Level of certainty
Time between crime and identification
Significance:
Attempted to balance reliability vs. suggestiveness.
Critics argue it prioritized confidence over accuracy.
2. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977)
Facts:
An undercover officer was shown a single photo of Brathwaite days after a drug buy and identified him as the dealer.
Issue:
Does the use of a single photograph violate due process?
Holding:
The Court ruled that even suggestive identification is admissible if it is deemed reliable under the Biggers test.
Significance:
Solidified the Biggers framework.
Widely criticized for allowing flawed identifications based on subjective reliability.
3. People v. Ronald Cotton (North Carolina, 1984–1995)
Facts:
Jennifer Thompson misidentified Ronald Cotton as her rapist based on a photo array and live lineup. Cotton was convicted and served 10+ years.
Outcome:
DNA testing later proved that another man, Bobby Poole, had committed the crime.
Significance:
Classic case of cross-racial misidentification.
Led to nationwide reforms in lineup procedures and eyewitness testimony protocols.
4. State of New Jersey v. Larry Henderson (2011, NJ Supreme Court)
Facts:
Henderson was convicted of murder, in part based on eyewitness testimony obtained through questionable procedures.
Issue:
Did flawed police practices in the identification process render the testimony unreliable?
Holding:
The New Jersey Supreme Court overhauled the legal standards for eyewitness identification, ordering trial courts to conduct pretrial reliability hearings.
Significance:
Set the gold standard for reform.
Required judges to consider system variables (e.g., lineup procedure) and estimator variables (e.g., stress, lighting).
5. Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012)
Facts:
A witness identified Perry from her window while he was standing next to a police officer.
Issue:
Should a suggestive but non-police-arranged identification be excluded from evidence?
Holding:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that only police-arranged suggestiveness triggers a due process analysis under the Constitution.
Significance:
Limited protection against unreliable eyewitness evidence.
Critics say it ignores that memory is vulnerable regardless of police intent.
6. People v. Franky Carrillo (California, 1992–2011)
Facts:
Carrillo was convicted at age 16 for a drive-by shooting based on six eyewitnesses, all of whom later recanted, admitting they were influenced by police or other witnesses.
Outcome:
Carrillo was exonerated after 20 years in prison.
Significance:
Shows how groupthink and police suggestion can taint multiple witnesses.
Influenced California to adopt blind lineup procedures and recorded identifications.
7. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)
Facts:
Wade was placed in a post-indictment lineup without counsel present.
Issue:
Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel apply to post-indictment lineups?
Holding:
Yes. The Court ruled that lineups are a critical stage of prosecution, and the accused has a right to counsel.
Significance:
Protects defendants during identification processes.
Still doesn’t prevent suggestive identifications before indictment.
8. Commonwealth v. Gomes (Massachusetts, 2015)
Facts:
Gomes challenged his conviction based on expert evidence about the unreliability of eyewitness memory.
Holding:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued model jury instructions cautioning jurors on the limits and risks of eyewitness testimony.
Significance:
Embraced science-based reforms.
Aimed to reduce wrongful convictions by educating juries.
⚖️ Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Year | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neil v. Biggers | 1972 | U.S. Supreme Court | Created five-factor reliability test |
| Manson v. Brathwaite | 1977 | U.S. Supreme Court | Allowed suggestive ID if deemed reliable |
| Ronald Cotton case | 1995 | North Carolina | Led to exoneration & reform in ID procedures |
| State v. Henderson | 2011 | NJ Supreme Court | Reformed eyewitness evidence standards |
| Perry v. New Hampshire | 2012 | U.S. Supreme Court | Limited due process claims to police-arranged ID |
| Franky Carrillo case | 2011 | California | Exoneration based on witness recantation |
| United States v. Wade | 1967 | U.S. Supreme Court | Right to counsel at post-indictment lineups |
| Commonwealth v. Gomes | 2015 | Massachusetts | Required science-based jury instructions |
🔄 Reforms Triggered by These Cases
Double-blind lineups: Officer doesn’t know the suspect to avoid bias.
Sequential lineups: Witness views suspects one at a time.
Video recording of identifications
Expert testimony on memory and misidentification
Enhanced jury instructions on the fallibility of eyewitness accounts
🧠 Conclusion
Eyewitness misidentification remains a systemic issue in criminal justice, despite long-standing awareness of its flaws. The legal system has evolved from permissive attitudes (Manson v. Brathwaite) to more cautious, evidence-based approaches (Henderson, Gomes). While the U.S. Supreme Court has been slow to mandate nationwide standards, states and lower courts have increasingly adopted scientific, procedural reforms to protect against wrongful convictions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments