|
Judges more receptive to expert testimony on the nature of eyewitness ID Trial judges are more receptive to allowing expert testimony on the nature of eyewitness identification because wrongful convictions have put a sharper focus on the reliability - or lack of it - of such evidence. Solomon M. Fulero, a college professor, lawyer and psychologist from Dayton, Ohio, had that observation at the first annual conference of the National Association of Appellate Court Attorneys earlier thismonth at the Richmond, Va. Omni. Cases that bar or limit such testimony, such as Currie vs. Commonwealth (VLW 099-7-293), can give a misleading impression of the legal landscape on the issue, he said, noting that he first testified as an expert on eyewitness testimony 25 years ago. … Fulero was a member of the technical working group that developed "Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement" (www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf) as a best practices manual for police in 1999. … It was only after DNA clearly showed the possibility of misidentification that law enforcement, judges and the public began demanding explanations for it, Fulero said. Although he typically is not allowed to testify on the circumstances of a particular case, he usually is permitted to testify generallyabout the inaccuracy of cross-racial identifications and other situations that have been shown to have high rates of misidentification, he said. False identifications are a factor in as many as 70 percent of wrongful convictions, Fulero said…
For a copy of the complete article, contact CJRG. |