Deliberations

Second response to "Now you see it, now you don't"

By Kelly Lawson

 

This is a second response to "Now you see it, now you don't".

Dr. Vallano makes several excellent points. Allow me to play prosecution advocate for a moment. I completely agree that memory is fallible (and malleable). I also completely agree that attorneys and judges need to be aware of the potential issues with eyewitness identification. However, when experts are presented to the jurors, how do they use this information? Does the knowledge that the presence of a weapon may impair identification lead jurors to completely dismiss the eyewitness? As Dr. Vallano pointed out, not all witnesses are inaccurate. How do we safeguard against the discrediting of an accurate witness?

 

Response to "Now you see it, now you don't"

By Jonathan Vallano

 

This is a reponse to "Now you see it, now you don't".

This provocative blog raises more questions than answers regarding eyewitness testimony.  What effects does eyewitness testimony have on legal decision-making (judges and jurors alike)?   Is expert testimony on eyewitness evidence more probative and prejudicial when admitted at trial?  Why do some states (albeit a minority of them) still prohibit expert testimony on eyewitness evidence, and is cross-examination an effective safeguard to point out the potential flaws of an eyewitness’s identification?  While these are intriguing questions, I will narrow my focus on trial practice- specifically what attorneys know about and how they deal with eyewitness testimony. 

 

Now you see it, now you don’t: The shortcomings of eyewitness identification

 By Matthew Mangino

            United States Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in a dissenting opinion more than thirty years ago, “There is almost nothing more convincing than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says, ‘That’s the one!’”
            Convincing yes-- reliable, maybe not...

            More than 75,000 prosecutions every year are based entirely on eyewitness identification. Some of those identifications are erroneous. The fallibility of human memory is not a new concept. In the 1800’s, memory researcher Hermann Ebbinghaus’ “Forgetting Curve” illustrated how quickly memories fade as time passes. Additionally, in 1971, England’s Criminal Law Review Committee stated that relying on eyewitness testimony could lead to false convictions. One study by University of Virginia Law School professor Brandon L. Garrett found that eyewitness misidentifications contributed to wrongful convictions in 76 percent of the cases overturned by DNA evidence.

In the end, family law is all about perspective

By Jordan Gerber, Esq.

 

 

I generally detest lawyer networking events. I know, I know. Probably not the best opening line for an article posted on a site whose readership includes attorneys, but hear me out. Now, I don’t want to go as far as quoting Groucho in saying that I have no interest in joining any club that would accept me as a member; but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel like Rodney Dangerfield walking into the dining room of Bushwood every time I attend  one of these soirees.

When I first started my practice and was attending enough of these events that I began to develop a pallet for Sutter Home and spinach phyllo, I found myself feeling like I was trapped in a scene from Groundhog’s Day. Allow me to set the stage: