Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
We all want to believe that we know what we see and could testify about it in court. But are we sure? As a Utah criminal attorney, you have to understand the dangers of relying on eyewitness testimony.
Wrongfully Convicted of Robbery
Harry Miller was convicted of robbery. Only he didn’t do it. At his trial, a store clerk and the victim of the robbery testified that Harry Miller was the one that committed the crime. After serving over four years in prison, he was finally able to prove that he was in Louisiana at the time of the robbery.
How could Utah criminal attorneys prosecute Harry Miller and convict him of a crime he didn’t commit? How could the store clerk and robbery victim testify that they were sure Harry Miller committed the crime when he was out of the State?
Did You See What You Think You Saw?
There is mounting evidence that eyewitnesses are not as reliable as we would like to believe. Prosecutors, police, judges, and juries often consider eyewitnesses as the gold standard in reliability despite this evidence. Utah criminal defense attorneys know better.
The National Registry of Exonerations lists hundreds of wrongful convictions for serious crimes including sexual assault, rape, and murder. Nearly half, 43%, involve eyewitness identifications that were mistaken.
Over and over, psychological studies have demonstrated that eyewitnesses are vulnerable to suggestion and likely to give false identifications. In one study, participants were shown a grainy video of a crime being committed and then shown five pictures and told that the culprit was in one of the photos. Only he wasn’t. Regardless, all of the study participants said they could identify the culprit.
Effective criminal defense attorneys in Utah have to understand how unreliable eyewitnesses can be. They have to understand the science behind the problems with eyewitnesses to explain them to judges, prosecutors and juries.
by Joshua Baron
Google
