PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

It is well-settled that an eyewitness identification is among the most persuasive forms of evidence that can be presented at a criminal trial. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan observed: “[T]here 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!’” Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 352 (1981) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Troublingly, the persuasiveness of eyewitness identifications is frequently accompanied by a significant risk of unreliability; eyewitness identifications are now understood to be “among the least reliable forms of evidence.” See United States v. Brownlee, 454 F.3d 131, 142 (3d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Indeed, eyewitness identification evidence plays a significant role in a strikingly high percentage of wrongful convictions exposed by post-conviction DNA testing nationwide; it is in fact the leading cause of wrongful conviction in those cases.

As set forth below, extensive scientific research demonstrates not only that eyewitness identifications are inherently fallible, but also that certain law enforcement practices and procedures can amplify the risk of misidentification. Many of the factors that contribute to the vulnerability of eyewitness identification evidence are not well understood by lay jurors, and in some cases are counterintuitive, often directly contradicting supposedly “common sense” beliefs. Accordingly, it is critical that this Court make clear that trial courts should permit expert testimony addressing these factors in appropriate cases. Without such testimony as background, juries are frequently unable to appropriately and fully evaluate eyewitness evidence.

This Court’s governing opinions on the admissibility of expert testimony relating to eyewitness evidence were decided more than thirty years ago. State v. Lawhorn, 762 S.W.2d 820 (Mo. 1988); State v. Whitmill, 780 S.W.2d 45 (Mo. 1989). Although Lawhorn and Whitmill did not impose a per se rule excluding expert testimony on eyewitness identification, Missouri’s trial courts often treat them as having done so. Consequently, jurors in this state routinely are denied the guidance necessary to evaluate properly the reliability of eyewitness identification testimony.

Based on the extensive body of scientific evidence on the factors that contribute to the frequent unreliability of eyewitness identification testimony—much of it developed in the thirty years since this Court last addressed the issue—courts across the country now regularly allow expert testimony explaining the reasons for that unreliability. These courts recognize that experts can equip jurors to evaluate the reliability of eyewitness testimony without invading the province of the jury, as expert testimony properly concerns the reliability of eyewitness identifications generally, not the credibility of the specific eyewitness in the case. That distinction is critical in the context of eyewitness testimony, where traditional protections like cross-examination are ineffective when an eyewitness is sincere and testifies honestly, but is simply mistaken.

Missouri law permits the admission of such expert testimony pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.065, the state’s recently-amended statute governing the admissibility of expert testimony. In light of the scientific research and with that statute’s provisions in mind, amici respectfully ask this Court to clarify that trial courts should generally admit expert testimony on factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identifications in cases where that is at issue.

Summary

Eyewitness identification is a powerful form of evidence in criminal trials. While convincing, it can also be unreliable. This type of evidence is a major cause of wrongful convictions, especially in cases where DNA testing later proves innocence.

Scientific research shows that eyewitness identifications are often flawed. Certain police methods can make misidentifications more likely. Juries often do not understand these factors, some of which go against common beliefs. Therefore, courts should allow expert testimony to explain these issues, helping juries properly evaluate eyewitness evidence.

The court's previous decisions on expert testimony about eyewitness evidence are over 30 years old. These rulings have often led trial courts in Missouri to prevent such expert testimony, leaving juries without important guidance.

Much scientific evidence on the unreliability of eyewitness identification has emerged since the court's last review. Many courts nationwide now allow experts to explain these issues. Experts help juries understand the general reliability of eyewitness testimony without telling them whether a specific witness is telling the truth. This expert help is important because traditional methods like cross-examination may not work if a witness is honest but simply mistaken.

Missouri law allows expert testimony under a recently updated statute. Considering the scientific research and this statute, the court is asked to confirm that trial courts should generally permit expert testimony on factors affecting eyewitness identification reliability when it is a key issue in a case.

Preliminary Statement

Eyewitness identification is often a very powerful form of evidence in a criminal trial. As one Supreme Court Justice noted, few things are as convincing as someone pointing at a defendant and saying, "That's the one!" However, despite its strong impact, eyewitness identification can often be unreliable. It is now understood to be among the least dependable types of evidence. In fact, it is the main cause of wrongful convictions revealed by DNA testing across the country.

Extensive scientific research shows that eyewitness identifications are naturally prone to error. This research also shows that certain police methods can increase the chance of mistaken identification. Many of the factors that make eyewitness evidence unreliable are not well understood by jurors. Some of these factors even go against what people commonly believe. Therefore, it is important that courts allow expert testimony to explain these factors in relevant cases. Without such expert background, juries often cannot properly evaluate eyewitness evidence.

The court's main decisions about allowing expert testimony on eyewitness evidence were made over thirty years ago. While these decisions did not completely ban expert testimony on eyewitness identification, trial courts in Missouri often act as if they did. As a result, juries in Missouri often do not get the guidance needed to properly assess the reliability of eyewitness identification testimony.

Since those earlier decisions, a large amount of scientific evidence has emerged regarding factors that contribute to the frequent unreliability of eyewitness identification testimony. Because of this, courts across the country now commonly allow experts to explain why eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. These courts recognize that experts can help jurors evaluate the reliability of eyewitness testimony without taking over the jury's role. Expert testimony focuses on the general reliability of eyewitness identifications, not on whether a specific eyewitness is truthful. This difference is important for eyewitness testimony, especially when traditional safeguards like cross-examination are ineffective because an eyewitness is honest but simply mistaken.

Missouri law allows for such expert testimony under its recently updated statute governing expert evidence. Considering the scientific research and the provisions of this statute, a clarification is requested from this Court. It should be made clear that trial courts should generally allow expert testimony on factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identifications when this issue is relevant in a case.

Summary

Eyewitness identification is a very convincing type of evidence presented in criminal trials. However, it is also known to be one of the least dependable forms of evidence. A significant number of wrongful convictions, uncovered by DNA testing, have involved inaccurate eyewitness identification, making it the leading cause of these errors.

Scientific research shows that eyewitness identifications are often flawed. It also reveals that certain police methods can make misidentification more likely. Many people on juries do not fully understand the factors that lead to these errors. Sometimes, these factors go against what people might commonly believe. Therefore, it is important for courts to allow experts to explain these issues in relevant cases. Without this expert information, juries often cannot properly assess eyewitness evidence.

The court's main decisions about whether to allow expert testimony on eyewitness evidence were made over thirty years ago. While these decisions did not completely ban such testimony, courts in Missouri often act as if they did. As a result, juries in the state are frequently not given the necessary guidance to properly judge the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Since the court last addressed this issue thirty years ago, a lot of scientific evidence has emerged about why eyewitness identification can be unreliable. Because of this, courts across the country now regularly permit expert testimony that explains these reasons. These courts understand that experts can help jurors assess the reliability of eyewitness testimony without telling them what to believe. Expert testimony focuses on the general reliability of eyewitness identifications, not whether a specific witness is telling the truth. This difference is key because traditional methods like cross-examination do not work well when an eyewitness is sincere and believes they are correct, but is simply mistaken.

Missouri law allows this type of expert testimony under a recently updated statute. Considering the scientific research and the law's rules, it is requested that the court clarify that trial courts should generally allow expert testimony about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness identifications in relevant cases.

Summary

Eyewitnesses pointing out a person in court can be very convincing. A judge once said that nothing is more powerful than someone pointing a finger and saying, "That's the one!" However, this kind of evidence is often wrong. Studies show that eyewitness accounts are one of the main reasons why innocent people are wrongly found guilty, especially when DNA tests later prove them innocent.

Science shows that people's memories are not always perfect. Also, how police talk to eyewitnesses can make mistakes more likely. Juries often do not know about these things, and sometimes what seems like common sense is actually wrong. It is important for a court to let experts explain these facts to a jury. This helps juries decide if an eyewitness's story is truly reliable.

More than 30 years ago, a court made rules about experts talking about eyewitnesses. Even though the rules did not ban experts, courts in this state often act like they do. This means juries do not get the information they need to properly judge eyewitness stories.

Since then, new science has shown a lot more about why eyewitness accounts can be wrong. Because of this, courts in other places now let experts explain these things. These experts help juries understand what makes an eyewitness story reliable, without telling them who to believe. This is important because even if an eyewitness believes what they saw, they can still be mistaken. Asking questions in court does not always fix this problem.

A state law allows experts to share their knowledge in court. Given the new science and this law, the court should make it clear that judges should usually let experts talk about things that affect how reliable an eyewitness's story is, when it is important in a case.