Following a shooting in Oregon in 2007, two women were questioned by police. According to reports, the women had seen the shooting through a car window in heavy rain. Following the shooting, they took off in a car and police had to track them down. Reports claim that the women claimed that they hadn't seem much during the incident because of their own emotions, the rain and darkness.
However, two years later the women were asked to identify the suspect. At the time of the identification, the suspect was apparently seated in a chair reserved for defendants. One of the women, apparently positively identified the man at this time as being the shooter.
Oregon's Supreme Court is now trying to determine if this eye-witness evidence can be used against the suspect in this case. The Court of Appeals has already ruled that the testimony by the women cannot be used because it is so unreliable. The court argued that the women's memories had been twisted during the criminal investigation and didn't show confidence in their own recollections. Furthermore, the fact that the suspect was seated in a defendant's chair when he was identified further tainted the evidence.
This case is just one of many around the country that is questioning the usefulness and accuracy of eye-witness testimony. Criminal defense professionals and scientists have long questioned the use of this type of testimony, but only recently have courts addressed the issue.
Those facing criminal charges in Oregon need to understand the flaws associated with using eye-witness testimony. If prosecutors are using this type of evidence against them, criminal defense strategies may be able to show how unreliable the evidence is. If the evidence is thrown out, people can see reduced charges and penalties.
Source: The Gadsdey Times, "Eyewitness testimony no longer a 'gold standard'," Nigel Duara, April 18, 2014
No Comments
Leave a comment