Mistaken eyewitness testimony is the single largest contributing factor to wrongful convictions. Pre-trial procedures utilized by law enforcement are not necessarily subject to suppression even when the procedures are considered "unnecessarily suggestive."
a. Discuss eyewitness procedure reforms and include an argument for and against the reforms. Using one of the cases from the text as an example, explain how implementation of the reform(s) would have resolved the defense's concerns.
b. What must the defense establish to successfully suppress a suggestive identification? Use cases as examples.
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?
Guide On Rating System
Vote
a. Eyewitness procedure reforms aim to reduce the impact of mistaken identification and improve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. One argument in favor of these reforms is that they can help prevent wrongful convictions. By implementing best practices for eyewitness identification, such as using double-blind procedures, minimizing suggestive influence, and providing clear instructions to witnesses, the likelihood of mistaken identifications can be reduced. Reform advocates argue that these procedures would result in more accurate identification and decrease the risk of innocent individuals being wrongfully convicted.
Taking the case of Ronald Cotton as an example, implementation of these reforms could have resolved the defense's concerns. In Cotton's case, the eyewitness initially identified him as the perpetrator but later recanted her identification upon seeing the actual perpetrator. By using double-blind procedures, where neither the witness nor the administrator knows who the suspect is, the risk of unintentional suggestive influence could have been minimized. Clear instructions to the witness, emphasizing the possibility that the perpetrator might not be in the lineup, could also have encouraged more cautious identification. These reforms would have promoted fairness and accuracy in Cotton's case and potentially prevented his wrongful conviction.
On the other hand, some argue against the implementation of eyewitness procedure reforms, claiming that they may unnecessarily impede law enforcement investigations. Critics argue that strict guidelines and limitations imposed on eyewitness procedures could hinder the ability of law enforcement to quickly apprehend suspects. They contend that the reforms may delay investigations, and as a result, some criminals may evade capture. Additionally, opponents argue that the reforms may undermine public trust in the effectiveness of law enforcement, leading to decreased cooperation and hampering crime-solving efforts.
b. To successfully suppress a suggestive identification, the defense must establish that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive and that the suggestiveness gave rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification. The defense needs to show that the procedure significantly increased the likelihood of the witness making an inaccurate identification.
A notable example is the case of Manson v. Braithwaite. Manson argued that the identification procedure used, which involved a single photo displayed to the witness, was unduly suggestive. Manson claimed that this suggestive identification procedure violated his due process rights and should be suppressed. However, the Supreme Court held that despite being suggestive, the identification was still reliable based on the totality of the circumstances, including the witness's opportunity to observe and her level of certainty. Therefore, the defense failed to establish the necessary requirement to suppress the identification.
c. Despite the arguments in favor of eyewitness identification reform, law enforcement may not be inherently motivated to implement such reforms when suppression is not ordinarily a viable option for the defense. Law enforcement agencies may prioritize factors such as expediency, ease of investigation, and public safety over potential reforms that might hinder these goals.
However, it should be noted that not all law enforcement agencies resist reforms. Many agencies have recognized the importance of accurate eyewitness identification and have voluntarily implemented reforms to improve procedures. They understand that accurate identification not only prevents wrongful convictions but also strengthens public trust in the criminal justice system. Additionally, some jurisdictions have introduced legislation or court rulings that require specific reforms, ensuring compliance and accountability.
In conclusion, while suppression might not be a viable option for the defense, the potential for reducing wrongful convictions and improving public trust should motivate law enforcement to implement eyewitness identification reforms voluntarily. The societal benefits of more accurate identification procedures outweigh any perceived setbacks in law enforcement's immediate investigative needs.
Got a question with my answer?
Cheapmath.com is completely free!
Asking question is free.
Getting answers is free.
+99