PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Judges have long cast a suspicious eye on uncorroborated eyewitness identifications. The Supreme Court cautioned that “[t]he vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification.” United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228 (1967). And then-Professor Frankfurter warned: “The identifications of strangers are proverbially untrustworthy.” Felix Frankfurter, The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti 27 (1927).

The advent of DNA testing has shown that this suspicion was justified. In this Court’s words, “[m]istaken eyewitness identifications are ‘the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in this country.’” People v. Boone, 30 N.Y.3d 521, 527 (2017) (citation omitted). Misidentifications have played a part in more than two-thirds of the wrongful convictions overturned by DNA, far more than any other cause.

Driven in large part by the proven risk of misidentifying the innocent, a body of scientific research has emerged that helps explain the fallibility of eyewitness memory. Over the course of thousands of studies since the 1970s, psychologists have discovered a set of variables that affect the accuracy and eliability of eyewitness identifications. This research provides, for the first time, a scientific basis for identifying those eyewitness identifications that are especially unreliable—and likely to lead to wrongful convictions. Courts across the country have accepted this body of research and incorporated it into their jurisprudence.

The science of eyewitness identification and memory indicates that the identification of a stranger here was patently unreliable. It involved a cross-racial identification made after a highly stressful incident involving multiple perpetrators, during which the complainant focused on the knife being wielded by one of Appellant’s co-defendants—all factors that, as discussed below, researchers now recognize reduce the accuracy of identifications. Moreover, the complainant could only describe the assailant later identified as Appellant as a “Hispanic male” to the police, and only identified Appellant after a highly suggestive collective showup, where he was surrounded by police and clumped next to two other men matching the complainant’s more detailed descriptions—a procedure that has been demonstrated to increase the likelihood of mistaken identification. And Complainant’s identification was uncorroborated.

A conviction that rests solely on such an identification is too weak to stand. This Court should adopt a rule analogous to the rules that apply to accomplice testimony and confessions: Uncorroborated stranger identifications that show substantial scientific indicia of unreliability are legally insufficient for conviction. Relying on such unreliable evidence alone poses an unacceptable risk of wrongful conviction.

Statement on Eyewitness Identification

For a long time, judges have been careful about eyewitness identifications that do not have other proof. The Supreme Court has stated that problems with eyewitness identification are well known. Many criminal cases show examples of incorrect identifications. An early legal scholar, Professor Frankfurter, also noted that identifying strangers is often unreliable.

DNA testing has confirmed that these concerns were valid. This Court has recognized that mistaken eyewitness identifications are the main reason for wrongful convictions in the United States. Such errors have been a factor in more than two-thirds of wrongful convictions that DNA evidence later overturned. This is a much higher rate than any other cause.

Because of the clear risk of identifying innocent people, scientific research has grown. This research helps explain why eyewitness memory can fail. Since the 1970s, many studies by psychologists have found various factors that affect how accurate and dependable eyewitness identifications are. This research offers a scientific way to pinpoint which eyewitness identifications are particularly untrustworthy and likely to cause wrongful convictions. Courts nationwide have accepted this research and used it in their legal decisions.

The scientific understanding of eyewitness identification and memory suggests that the identification of the stranger in this case was clearly unreliable. This identification involved someone identifying a person from a different race after a very stressful event with several attackers. During the event, the person making the identification focused on a knife held by one of the attackers, not on the individual later identified as the appellant. These are all factors that researchers now know can make identifications less accurate. Furthermore, the person making the complaint could only describe the attacker, later identified as the appellant, to the police as a "Hispanic male." The identification of the appellant happened during a highly suggestive show-up procedure. In this procedure, the appellant was surrounded by police and grouped with two other men who matched the complainant's more detailed descriptions. Such procedures are known to increase the chance of mistaken identification. The complainant’s identification was also not supported by any other evidence.

A conviction based only on such an identification is not strong enough to be upheld. This Court should implement a rule similar to those for testimony from accomplices or confessions. Identifications of strangers that are not supported by other evidence and show significant scientific signs of unreliability should not be considered sufficient for a conviction. Depending only on such unreliable evidence creates an unacceptable risk of wrongful convictions.

Preliminary Statement

Judges have long been cautious about eyewitness identifications that are not supported by other evidence. The Supreme Court noted that issues with eyewitness identification are well known, and criminal cases often show examples of mistaken identification. Early legal scholars also pointed out that identifying strangers is often unreliable.

The development of DNA testing has confirmed these concerns. Mistakes in eyewitness identification are considered the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the United States. Such misidentifications have contributed to over two-thirds of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence, far more than any other reason.

Because of the proven risk of mistaken identity, scientific research has grown to explain why eyewitness memory can be flawed. Since the 1970s, many studies by psychologists have found various factors that affect how accurate and dependable eyewitness identifications are. This research offers a scientific basis to identify eyewitness identifications that are particularly unreliable and likely to lead to wrongful convictions. Courts nationwide have accepted this research and used it in their legal decisions.

The science of eyewitness identification and memory suggests that the identification of a stranger in this case was clearly unreliable. It involved an identification across racial lines made after a very stressful event with several attackers. During the event, the person making the identification focused on a knife held by one of the co-defendants. All these factors are now known by researchers to reduce the accuracy of identifications. Furthermore, the person could only describe the assailant later identified as the Appellant as a "Hispanic male" to the police. The identification of the Appellant only happened after a highly suggestive group showup, where he was surrounded by police and placed next to two other men who better matched the person's more detailed descriptions. This procedure has been shown to increase the chance of mistaken identification. The identification was also not supported by any other evidence.

A conviction based only on such an identification is too weak to be upheld. The Court should adopt a rule similar to those for accomplice testimony and confessions: Stranger identifications that are not supported by other evidence and show significant signs of scientific unreliability are not enough for a conviction. Relying solely on such unreliable evidence presents an unacceptable risk of wrongful conviction.

Summary

Judges have long been cautious about eyewitness identifications that are not supported by other evidence. The Supreme Court has noted that problems with eyewitness identification are common, and many criminal cases show examples of mistaken identification. A legal scholar once warned that identifying strangers is often unreliable.

DNA testing has proven these concerns to be valid. Mistaken eyewitness identifications are the primary reason for wrongful convictions in the United States. They have contributed to over two-thirds of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence, more than any other single factor.

Because of the clear risk of identifying innocent people, scientific research has developed to explain why eyewitness memory can be flawed. Since the 1970s, many studies by psychologists have found factors that affect how accurate and dependable eyewitness identifications are. This research offers a scientific way to spot unreliable eyewitness identifications, which are more likely to cause wrongful convictions. Courts nationwide have accepted this research and used it in their legal decisions.

The scientific understanding of eyewitness identification and memory suggests that identifying a stranger in this case was unreliable. The identification involved someone of a different race, happened after a very stressful event with several attackers, and the person making the identification focused on a knife held by another person. These are all factors that research shows reduce the accuracy of identifications. Additionally, the person could only describe the attacker, later identified as the Appellant, as a "Hispanic male." The identification of the Appellant only happened during a suggestive group viewing where he was surrounded by police and placed next to two other men who fit more detailed descriptions. This procedure is known to increase the chance of a mistaken identification. Furthermore, there was no other evidence to support this identification.

A conviction based only on such an unreliable identification is too weak to be upheld. The Court should implement a rule similar to those for accomplice testimony and confessions. Stranger identifications that are not supported by other evidence and show significant signs of unreliability, according to scientific standards, should not be enough for a conviction. Relying only on such unreliable evidence creates an unacceptable risk of wrongful conviction.

Summary

Judges have long been careful about eyewitness reports that do not have other proof. The highest court once said that it is common for people to make mistakes when they identify someone they saw. There have been many cases where the wrong person was identified.

Later, DNA testing showed that these worries were true. Mistaken eyewitness reports are the main reason why people are wrongly found guilty. This happens in more than two out of three cases where DNA proved someone was innocent. This is much more than any other reason for wrong convictions.

Because of the high risk of wrongly identifying innocent people, scientists have studied how eyewitness memory can fail. Since the 1970s, many studies have shown different things that make eyewitness reports more or less accurate. This science helps to find which eyewitness reports are not trustworthy and could lead to someone being wrongly convicted. Many courts now use this science in their decisions.

In one specific case, the identification of a stranger was likely not correct. The person who saw the event was of a different race than the person identified. The event was very stressful with many people involved. The person who saw it focused on a knife, not on the faces of the people. Scientists say these things make identifications less accurate. Also, the person who saw the event first told the police only that the attacker was a "Hispanic male." The identification happened later in a way that could have led to a mistake. The identified person was with other men who fit better descriptions, and police were all around. This kind of setup can make people wrongly identify someone. There was also no other proof to support the identification.

A conviction based only on such a weak identification should not stand. There should be a rule like those for other kinds of evidence. If a stranger's identification is not supported by other proof and science shows it is not reliable, it should not be enough to find someone guilty. Relying only on such unreliable evidence is too risky and could lead to wrong convictions.