Full Answer Section

Arguments against eyewitness procedure reforms:

• Eyewitness testimony is still an important part of the criminal justice system.
• Eyewitness procedure reforms can be time-consuming and expensive to implement.
• Eyewitness procedure reforms may make it more difficult to convict criminals.

Example case:

In the case of State v. Washington, the defendant was convicted of murder based on the eyewitness testimony of a single witness. The eyewitness had seen the defendant from a distance of about 100 feet in poor lighting conditions. The eyewitness had also been shown a photo lineup of six suspects, and the defendant was the only suspect in the lineup who matched the eyewitness’s description of the perpetrator.

The defense argued that the eyewitness identification was suggestive because the eyewitness had only seen the defendant from a distance and in poor lighting conditions, and because the defendant was the only suspect in the lineup who matched the eyewitness’s description of the perpetrator. The defense also argued that the eyewitness identification was unreliable because the eyewitness had changed their testimony several times.

If eyewitness procedure reforms had been implemented in this case, the defense may have been able to successfully suppress the eyewitness identification. For example, if the police had used a double-blind lineup procedure, the eyewitness would not have known which suspect was the actual suspect. This would have reduced the risk of the eyewitness being influenced by the police or by their own expectations.

b. What must the defense establish to successfully suppress a suggestive identification? Use cases as examples.

To successfully suppress a suggestive identification, the defense must establish that the identification procedure was so suggestive that it created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.

The following factors may be considered by the court in determining whether an identification procedure was suggestive:

• The eyewitness’s opportunity to view the crime and the perpetrator.
• The lighting conditions and other factors that may have affected the eyewitness’s ability to perceive the perpetrator.
• The eyewitness’s description of the perpetrator to the police before the identification procedure.
• The suggestiveness of the identification procedure itself.

Examples:

In the case of Neil v. Biggers, the Supreme Court held that a suggestive identification procedure does not necessarily require suppression of the identification. The Court held that the court must also consider the totality of the circumstances, including the eyewitness’s opportunity to view the crime and the perpetrator, and the eyewitness’s level of confidence in the identification.

In the case of Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court held that a suggestive identification procedure is more likely to be suppressed if the eyewitness is shown a single-person lineup. The Court held that double-blind lineups are less suggestive and are therefore more likely to be reliable.

c. Despite the arguments in favor of eyewitness identification reform, is law enforcement motivated to implement such reforms when suppression is not ordinarily a viable option for the defense?

Law enforcement may be less motivated to implement eyewitness identification reforms if suppression is not ordinarily a viable option for the defense. This is because law enforcement may be reluctant to change their procedures if they do not believe that it will have a significant impact on their ability to convict criminals.

However, it is important to note that eyewitness identification reform can have a number of benefits for law enforcement. For example, eyewitness identification reform can help to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. Eyewitness identification reform can also help to improve the public’s perception of law enforcement.

Law enforcement agencies should carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of eyewitness identification reform before deciding whether or not to implement such reforms.

Additional thoughts:

It is important to note that eyewitness identification reform is a complex issue with no easy answers. There are a number of arguments for and against reform, and it is important to weigh the benefits and drawbacks carefully.

It is also important to note that eyewitness identification reform is not a silver bullet. It is only one part of a comprehensive approach to reducing the risk of wrongful convictions. Other important measures include