3/11/08 (TN):
'Eyewitness Experts': A New Trend?
|
|
After a mugging victim positively identified Jarvis Davis as his assailant, the matter proceeded to trial. During the defense case an expert witness was called who testified about the need for caution when dealing with identification.
Dr Julie Buck, a social psychologist from Ogden Utah, told the jury about the inherent unreliability of identification evidence, and gave them specific information relating to statistical rates of ID error and how wrongful convictions are not uncommon.
The jury returned a not guilty verdict after just thirty minutes deliberating.
Such 'eyewitness experts' are becoming more common in the U.S., despite some judges excluding their evidence. In Tennessee, the state Supreme Court has recently approved such testimony where appropriate, and there is little doubt that the trend will continue. Some prosecutors are now considering calling their own expert to counter the defense.
Prosecutors have also heavily criticised the move, pointing out that hiring an expert to testify about matters of common sense is a waste of time and money, and that a jury doesn't need an expert to tell them these things. They also point out that, coming from an expert, greater weight is attached to the message.
On the other hand, defence lawyers have pointed out that such evidence is only relevant in a limited number of trials; there may be valid psychological reasons why witnesses get it wrong in ID cases, and an expert should be allowed to explain those to the jury.
Whatever the arguments it is highly likely that this trend will grow in the future.
© X-Pro 2008
|
|
