NCJ Number
130300
Date Published
1991
Length
28 pages
Annotation
Although constitutional issues arising from eyewitness identification are significant, evidentiary issues may also result from using certain types of identification evidence.
Abstract
The trend toward liberalizing evidentiary rules reflects the view that eyewitness identification testimony is an unusually persuasive form of evidence to show a defendant's guilt. Recent research and commentary, however, have suggested that the emphasis on eyewitness identification may lead to questionable results. Particular attention should be paid to the kind of identification procedures used, the timing of those procedures, and the type of evidence involved. In conjunction with the requirement that counsel be present at certain identification confrontations, consideration should be given to proper attorney roles. A key issue is whether the attorney can actually determine if unfair suggestiveness exists at a confrontation. Reliability is crucial to determining the admissibility of identification testimony. Factors to be considered include the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of prior witness description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Case materials are included.