Eyewitness ID reform bill introduced in judiciary committee
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Fantastic news today. A new bill has been introduced to reform ID procedures in CT.
The bill provides for most of the recommended changes to ID procedures during lineups. I have reproduced the bill in its entirety below. Spread the word:
(b) Not later than January 1, 2009, each municipal police department and the Department of Public Safety shall adopt procedures for the conducting of photo lineups and live lineups that comply with the following requirements:
(1) When practicable, the person conducting the identification procedure shall be a person who is not aware of which person in the photo lineup or live lineup is suspected as the perpetrator of the offense;
(2) The photo lineup and live lineup identification procedures shall be conducted in sequence so that the eyewitness is shown each photograph or each person one at a time rather than viewing the photographs or the persons simultaneously;
(3) The eyewitness shall be instructed prior to the identification procedure:
(A) That the perpetrator may not be among the persons in the photo lineup or the live lineup;
(B) That the eyewitness should not feel compelled to make an identification;
(C) That each photograph or person will be viewed one at a time;
(D) That the photographs or persons will be displayed in random order;
(E) That the eyewitness should take as much time as needed in making a decision about each photograph or person before moving to the next one; and
(F) That all photographs or persons will be shown to the eyewitness, even if an identification is made before all have been viewed;
(4) The photo lineup or live lineup shall be composed so that the fillers generally fit the description of the person suspected as the perpetrator and, in the case of a photo lineup, so that the photograph of the person suspected as the perpetrator resembles his or her appearance at the time of the offense and does not unduly stand out;
(5) If the eyewitness has previously viewed a photo lineup or live lineup in connection with the identification of another person suspected of involvement in the offense, the fillers in the lineup in which the person suspected as the perpetrator participates shall be different from the fillers used in any prior lineups;
(6) At least five fillers shall be included in the photo lineup and at least four fillers shall be included in the live lineup, in addition to the person suspected as the perpetrator;
(7) In a photo lineup, no writings or information concerning any previous arrest of the person suspected as the perpetrator shall be visible to the eyewitness;
(8) In a live lineup, any identification actions, such as speaking or making gestures or other movements, shall be performed by all lineup participants;
(9) In a live lineup, all lineup participants shall be out of the view of the eyewitness at the beginning of the identification procedure;
(10) The person suspected as the perpetrator shall be the only suspected perpetrator included in the identification procedure;
(11) Nothing shall be said to the eyewitness regarding the position in the photo lineup or the live lineup of the person suspected as the perpetrator, except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (D) of subdivision (3) of this subsection;
(12) Nothing shall be said to the eyewitness that might influence the eyewitness’s selection of the person suspected as the perpetrator;
(13) If the eyewitness identifies a person as the perpetrator, the eyewitness shall not be provided any information concerning such person prior to obtaining the eyewitness’s statement that he or she is certain of the selection; and
(14) A written record of the identification procedure shall be made that includes the following information:
(A) All identification and nonidentification results obtained during the identification procedure, signed by the eyewitness, including the eyewitness’s own words regarding how certain he or she is of the selection;
(B) The names of all persons present at the identification procedure;
(C) The date and time of the identification procedure;
(D) The order in which the photographs or persons were displayed to the eyewitness;
(E) In a photo lineup, the photographs themselves;
(F) In a photo lineup, identification information and the sources of all photographs used; and
(G) In a live lineup, identification information on all persons who participated in the lineup.
One can only hope that this passes.
HT: CTLP
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Clearly, there are serious issues with eyewitness testimony, as it is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Improving the accuracy of the system should be everyone’s goal. Additionally, police departments and prosecutors offices should have a culture where “false positives” are not a happy occurrence. Catching the wrong guy doesn’t help anyone.
Actually, it’s the second leading cause of wrongful convictions. The first is jailhouse informants (or, as they are commonly called, “snitches”).
Imagine that.
No, no, no.
75% of wrongful convictions are because of bad ID.
15% are because of snitches.
I believe I said “a leading” cause, not “the leading” cause. I’m happy though, since I don’t know a lot about this issue, to leave it to you guys. I do know about the difficulties of cross-racial identification and the refusal of courts to allow expert testimony on witness fallibility.
Sorry, Gid. I was citing some old stats. I suck. ::hands head::
And my apologies SPO, for skimming too quickly.
Or I just got it backwards in my head somehow. These things also happen.
Believe it or not, I am not a fan of false positives, i.e., the conviction of innocent people. A police officer should get as much praise if he exonerates someone that he gets when he collars a bad guy. A cop who goes the extra mile to disprove a “confession” or an eyewitness account is the kind of cop we want to have protecting us.
I don’t find it difficult to believe, SPO. It fits right in with what I know of you.
The thing about Eyewitness ID, is that memory processing, while extremely interesting to study, is quite complex, and oftentimes beyond the ken of your average layperson. I kind of fell into researching about it when I was an intern, and found I really liked it.
At the end of the day, when it’s time for suggestive ID’s to be suppressed in court, the law simply hasn’t caught up with the science. Given that, the best place to start is with the procedures themselves.
So while I’m glad that the legislature has this tidbit in the making, I’m not particularly optimistic. My prediction is that law enforcement will lament about how how impracticable the new procedures are. An “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.
And even if it does pass, how will it be enforced? I see a huge enforcement problem with this. So… we shall see.
What is the enforcement problem you see?
I would guess the remedies for non-compliance . . . . exclusion would be what you guys would want. “Goes to weight, not admissibility” is what the prosecutors would want.