Summary of Argument

Despite being excluded as a possible donor of the male DNA recovered from the victim during the rape kit examination, Chaz Bunch—at only 17 years old—was convicted of rape and other related charges, primarily based upon a suggestive in-court, cross-race identification, by the victim in the instant case, who: (1) failed to identify him in a photographic lineup days after the crime, (2) was, thereafter, exposed to Mr. Bunch’s photograph in prejudicial media coverage of the offense, and (3) only positively identified him more than one year after the offense, in the courtroom at proceedings in which Mr. Bunch was clearly presented to her as the accused. Despite expanding awareness in criminal courts around the nation about the fallibility of eyewitness memory, and his original counsel’s efforts to obtain an expert witness, Mr. Bunch’s trial counsel— who has since been indefinitely suspended from the Ohio bar—inexplicably did not present expert testimony to help the jury weigh the reliability of the eyewitness identification evidence.

For the reasons that follow, amici urge this Court to modify the current legal framework for assessing the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence and to remand the instant matter for the presentation of scientific evidence regarding the identification at issue—an identification that bears several indicia of unreliability.

Summary of Argument

The case of Chaz Bunch presents a compelling argument for reevaluating the current legal framework for assessing the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence. Despite being excluded as a possible contributor of male DNA found in the rape kit, Mr. Bunch was convicted of rape and related charges primarily based on an in-court, cross-race identification by the victim. The identification is highly questionable given the victim's initial failure to identify Mr. Bunch in a photographic lineup shortly after the crime, subsequent exposure to his photograph in media coverage, and a positive identification only after a year, in a courtroom setting where Mr. Bunch was clearly presented as the accused. This sequence of events raises serious concerns about the reliability of the identification, particularly in light of increasing awareness regarding the fallibility of eyewitness memory. Despite the potential for expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification, Mr. Bunch's trial counsel, who has since been suspended from the bar, inexplicably failed to present such evidence.

Amici argue that the court should modify the current legal framework to accommodate the presentation of scientific evidence regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification, particularly in cases exhibiting clear signs of unreliability. Remanding the case for the presentation of such evidence would ensure a more thorough and accurate assessment of the identification's validity.

Summary of Argument

This case involves the conviction of Chaz Bunch, a 17-year-old, for rape and related charges. The primary evidence against Bunch was an in-court identification by the victim, a cross-racial identification. However, there are several concerns about the reliability of this identification:

1. The victim initially failed to identify Bunch in a photographic lineup shortly after the crime.

2. Subsequently, she was exposed to Bunch’s photograph in media coverage of the offense, which could have influenced her identification.

3. The victim only positively identified Bunch over a year after the crime, in a courtroom setting where he was clearly presented as the accused.

Despite the potential unreliability of the eyewitness identification and growing awareness of the fallibility of eyewitness memory, Bunch’s trial counsel—who has since been suspended from the Ohio bar—failed to present expert testimony to help the jury evaluate the reliability of the identification.

Amici curiae argue that the court should modify the legal framework for assessing the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence and remand the case for the presentation of scientific evidence on the identification in question. This is particularly important considering the multiple factors that suggest the unreliability of the identification.

Summary of Argument

Chaz Bunch was convicted of rape and other crimes even though he was excluded as a possible donor of DNA found on the victim. The conviction was based largely on the victim's identification of him in court, but there are several reasons why this identification may be unreliable.

First, the victim did not identify Chaz Bunch in a photo lineup shortly after the crime. Second, she was exposed to his photo in news reports about the case, which may have influenced her later identification. Third, she only positively identified him more than a year after the crime, when he was clearly presented to her as the accused in court.

Despite the unreliability of the eyewitness identification, Chaz Bunch's trial lawyer did not present expert testimony to the jury about the potential inaccuracies of eyewitness memory. This is significant because experts in eyewitness memory can help jurors understand the factors that influence the reliability of identifications.

Because of these issues, experts are asking the court to reconsider how eyewitness identifications are evaluated and to allow Chaz Bunch to present evidence from an expert about the identification in his case.

Summary of Argument

Chaz Bunch, a young man of 17, was found guilty of rape and other crimes. The main evidence against him was the victim's identification of him in court. However, the victim had failed to identify him from pictures shown to her shortly after the crime. She only identified him as the attacker over a year later, in court, when he was already considered the suspect.

This is a big problem because experts say that people's memories aren't always perfect, especially when it comes to remembering faces. Chaz's lawyer should have called an expert to help the jury understand how unreliable the victim's identification might have been. This could have changed the outcome of the trial.