The system makes mistakes: Eyewitness Identifications and DNA Evidence
I watched an interesting story on "60 Minutes" last night concerning eyewitness identifications and the reliability of this evidence. Since the inception of DNA evidence, more than 220 criminal defendants in the United States have been exonerated because their DNA shows that they were not the individual that committed the crime for which they were convicted. More than 75% of these false convictions were based on faulty eyewitness identifications.
An eyewitness identification is considered essential evidence at trial. First, the victim or third person was present at the scene and is able to identify the individual that they believe committed the crime. Second, these witnesses (most times) have no reason to lie so the jury considers these identifications very persuasive. However, history and science has proven that these eyewitness ID's are not always reliable.
The biggest problem has arisen when the witness is shown a photo array or a lineup in which the actual perpetrator is not included. Many times the witness identifies someone who looks similar to the actual perpetrator and then their mind convinces them that this new individual was actually the person that committed the crime. To start, as human beings we always like to be right and we typically rely on our first instict. As a result, in the witnesses mind, they actually see this new individual's face as the person who committed the crime rather than the actual perpetrator. In fact, even when DNA evidence exonerates the innocent person, the witness or victim has a hard time believing that they were wrong. Further, the witness or victim should be able to identify the actual perpetrator right away in the photo array or lineup. If they have to take more than a minute and even several minutes to examine each individual then there is a very good chance that the actual perpetrator of the crime is not included in the lineup or photo array.
Therefore, it is important to consider eyewitness identifications along with all the other evidence before determining, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged. If there is other evidence such as a weapon or other circumstantial evidence to support the eyewitness ID, then there is an extremely solid case against the defendant. However, if the case relies solely on an eyewitness ID and there is little other evidence to support a conviction, the jury must remember that these eyewitness ID's are not infallible and that these human beings do make mistakes. It is a real shame when a person loses years of their life in prison for a crime they did not commit. We shouldn't have to rely on DNA evidence down the road to exonerate them.
