208 (FL) prompts calls for EyeID Reform
As the dust on the 208th DNA exoneree had barely begun to settle, Broward County public defender Howard Finkelstein sent a letter to law enforcement officials suggesting a change in identification procedures.
Bostic’s [the exoneree] accuser recently told an investigator she never saw her rapist. She picked Bostic out of a photo lineup, she said, because she had seen him in the neighborhood in the days before the attack.
Simple extra precautions could keep this from happening again, Finkelstein said.
“These procedures will impact the human cost of misidentification,” he said. “This isn’t about pointing the finger at law enforcement. This is about making sure the methodology and the systems we employ are designed so innocent people don’t get ensnared in our system.”
Currently, Florida uses the non-blind, non-sequential method of identification. Finkelstein called for them to use the double-blind, sequential method. Law enforcement’s response was curious, if not typical:
“If we had concerns about the procedure, we would have changed the procedure,” said Elliot Cohen, spokesman for the Broward Sheriff’s Office. “But new ideas and new proposals are always worth looking at, and we’ll take it in that spirit.”
At least eyeid reform seems to be gaining some momentum. 16 states have considered some legislation in this regard during the past year. Connecticut, although one of those sixteen, couldn’t get past simply funding a pilot program. I’m not even sure that the pilot program has gone into effect.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on October 30, 2007 at 7:27 am, and is filed under eyewitness id. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |



about 2 years ago
208?
I believe this would bring it up to 210, though it’s getting harder to keep track of what number to give each individual exonerated defendant. What a nice problem to have.
about 2 years ago
[quote comment="7452"]208?
I believe this would bring it up to 210, though it’s getting harder to keep track of what number to give each individual exonerated defendant. What a nice problem to have.[/quote]
The article says 208th, but that could be wrong. Either way, it’s good to see the number growing.
Btw, I saw this movie last week and it’s worth watching if you can get your hands on it. A well told tale of wrongful convictions, the reasons for them and the fights that were fought to secure release.