About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

45 La. L. Rev. 721 (1984-1985)
Unreliable Eyewitness Evidence: The Expert Psychologist and the Defense in Criminal Cases

handle is hein.journals/louilr45 and id is 729 raw text is: UNRELIABLE EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE: THE EXPERT PSYCHOLOGIST AND THE DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL CASES In May of 1965, a person wearing wraparound sunglasses and a straw hat robbed a credit union in Warren, Michigan, escaping with nearly $5,000. A manager, an employee, and a customer witnessed the crime but on the same afternoon were unable to identify the robber, either from a book of mug shops or from a lineup. On the next day, the manager and the employee identified Louis Nasir first from a book of mug shots and then from a one-man show-up through a one-way glass. Nasir had not participated in the first lineup, although his mug shot may have been among those viewed by the witnesses on the day of the robbery. All three eyewitnesses identified Nasir as the robber from a lineup on the following Monday. There was no indication of unfairness or undue suggestion in the lineup itself. At trial the sole issue was identification and the jury convicted Nasir, apparently choosing to believe the three eyewitnesses rather than six witnesses who placed Nasir at work on the day of the robbery. Nasir served 375 days in prison before being released after an accomplice of the now-dead robber confessed. Yet all three witnesses had expressed absolute certainty in their identifications of Nasir, who did resemble the actual robber.' This is but one of the many instances of conviction of innocent people based on mistaken eyewitness identifications.' Although there are numerous examples, it is very difficult to know how many innocent people have been convicted because, as in the Nasir case, it is very difficult to distinguish correct from incorrect identifications. In many of the cases the discovery of the mistake was purely a stroke of luck,3 while in others, such as the Nasir case, it was the result of diligent post-conviction investigation by defense counsel or the police detectives who participated in the case.4 One frequently-suggested method of safeguarding against convictions based on misidentification is the use of expert testimony on the unre- liability of eyewitness evidence by cognitive psychologists. Trial courts * Copyright 1985, by Louisiana Law Review. 1. People v. Anderson, 389 Mich. 155, 197-99, 205 N.W.2d 461, 482-83 app. A (1973). 2. See id. for two other examples of Michigan cases. See also, e.g., E. Borchard, Convicting the Innocent: Errors of Criminal Justice (1932); P. Wall, Eye-Witness Iden- tification in Criminal Cases (1965). 3. See, e.g., E. Borchard, supra note 2, at 8. 4. See, e.g., id. at 1.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most