More handpicked essays just for you.
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about. This case started on July 25, 1984, with the death of a nine year old girl by the name of Dawn Hamilton. The story plays out as follows: Dawn approached two boys and an adult male that were fishing at a pond in a wooded area near Golden Ring Mall in eastern Baltimore, Maryland. Dawn asked the boys to help her find her cousin, they declined the adult male however agreed to help her look. This was the last time anyone saw Hamilton alive. Hamilton’s body was found to have been raped, strangled and beaten with a rock. The police collected a boot print at the scene and DNA that was found in Hamilton’s underwear. The police also relied on the witness testimonies and line-ups, which in this case was the photo array. With the five eye witness testimonies and a tip the believed to be suspect was found. Kirk Noble Bloodsworth a prior U.S. Marine with no prior criminal record was taken into custody and charged with intentional first degree murder, sexual assault and rape. Bloodsworth was basically convicted on the eye witness testimonies. The state requested the death penalty. Bloodsworth was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. (BLOODSWORTH v. STATE, 1988) On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c... ... middle of paper ... ...lice or lawyers used their integrity. The police skirted around the law and use evidence that the witnesses said was not correct. They had a description of the suspect that did not match Bloodsworth but, they went after him as well. They also used eyewitness testimony that could have been contaminated. Works Cited BLOODSWORTH v. STATE, 76 Md. App. 23 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland July 8, 1988). Jain, M. (2001). Mitigating the Dangers of Capital Convictions Based on Eyewitness Testimony Through Treason's Two-Witness Rule. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 761-790. McNamara, J. M. (2009). Sketchy Eyewitness-Identification Procedures:A Proposal to Draw up Legal Guidelines For The Use of Facial Composites in Criminal Investigations. Univesity of Wisconsin Law School, 764-799. Samaha, J. (2012). Criminal Procedure. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Police also had fingerprints from the buick the was used in the South Braintree crime. But the fingerprints didn’t match and the police instead questioned them on their religion, political beliefs and associates, instead of the crime. The prosecutors used witnesses, but the witness accounts made no sense. Meaning it didn’t match the descriptions of the men and the stories weren’t the same and had loopholes. One witness said she saw the shooting from 60 feet away and said one of the men, which she said was Sacco, had big hands but he had small hands.
The Army CID sent a new, inexperienced investigator named William Ivory to investigate the scene. Ivory decided after looking around the house that MacDonald made up the story of the killers. He also persuaded everyone that he was the culprit. This meant that everyone in Ivory’s chain...
In the Forensic case #356228, the skeletal remains found in January 2009 in a deer hunting area were those of a black male greater than the age of 45. The jury felt based upon the evidence provided that the skeletal remains found were that of Robert Rutherford and the accused, John O’Hara was guilty as charged. The incidence was speculated to have happened around four years ago, when the defendant and the victim were in a quarrel over the hunting area. Due to the fact that John O’Hara went to confession more in February 2009, indicated that he had a guilty conscience. John O’Hara was known for hunting in the area and based on the evidence provided the jury speculated that he shot Robert Rutherford possibly from his deer stand, resulting in his death.
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
On Thanksgiving evening, November 27, 1992, Sergeant Kenneth Mathison and his wife Yvonne drive their 1988 tan Ford van along Route 131 in Hilo, Hawaii. The rain is pouring down and before he knows it, Kenneth Mathison is awaiting police assistance as he cradles his wife’s dead body in the back of their van. Mathison, a sergeant of 25 years with the Hilo Police Department was allegedly informing his wife, a maternity nursing professional at the Hilo Medical Center, that he was being investigated in his second paternity suit. According to Mathison, when Yvonne heard the news, she jumped from the passenger side of the van. While he was looking for her in the blinding rain, Mathison purportedly ran over his wife. He then carried the body into the van and secured it with yellow rope in the back before attempting to find help. Will the forensic evidence support Mathison’s account of that fateful evening?
In summation, is can be identified in this paper that eye witnesses do not play a constructive role within the criminal justice system. This can be seen through a thorough discussion of the many issues portrayed through this paper. To conclude Schmechel et al. (2006) reiterates that statements this paper has presented and discussed;
The opening scene is a re-enactment of R v Liam Cooley. Cooley is the suspect in an armed robbery. He pleads ignorance but investigators have found the accused’s fingerprints on a pair of sunglasses in the getaway car. The prosecution’s witness is a member of the NSW Forensics Squad. During the examination-in-chief, the prosecutor strategically confirmed the forensics officer’s extensive expertise and the scientific validity of the methodology used. This is permissible under s 29(1) which allows parties to proceed in any manner they see fit. Here the prosecutor used the credibility gap to his advantage, as the police officer’s technical statements, “rich in detail”, were seen as legitimate.
Known factors leading to wrongful conviction: Five mistaken eyewitnesses, junk science, withholding of exculpatory evidence by prosecution
The essence of the case was the argument that whether consenting to a fight was an enough defense to indicate the accused’s innocence in regards to assault, (which resulted in manslaughter). The accused claimed that he was not guilty since all the criteria for an act to be considered as an assault were not met; the deceased has consented to the fight.
Eyewitnesses are primarily used by the criminal justice system for investigating and prosecuting crimes, particularly in circumstances where it is the only evidence available (Wells & Olson, 2003). Their testimony is highly regarded as it allows for police, prosecutors, judges and juries to establi...
Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf
In recent years, the use of eyewitness testimonies as evidence in court cases has been a subject in which various researchers have been interested in. Research suggests that eyewitness testimonies are actually not reliable enough to use as primary evidence in court cases. There have been many cases in which an innocent person gets sent to prison for a crime they did not commit because an eyewitness testified that they were the ones that they saw at the scene of the crime. Researchers’ goal is to improve the legal system by finding out whether eyewitness testimonies should be used in the court of law or not.
There is barely any counter evidence published which might be due to the effects not being published or simply there was no counter evidence found. We can also say that the given research seems reliable although most studies were in experiments and not in real life situations. Furthermore, other biases (e.g. gender bias, prejudice bias, emotional bias) have not been taken into account in this essay. However, despite all possibilities of how eyewitness testimony can be distorted, we can conclude that eyewitness testimony is a crucial part of the legal system and can be viewed as
Eyewitness evidence is critical for solving a crime, and can often be the main source of evidence in determining who the perpetrator is. However, it is estimated that every year, approximately 4,500 wrongful convictions have happened in the United States alone, based on inaccurate or mistaken eyewitness testimonies. Studies have consistently shown that the leading cause for wrongful convictions is invalid eyewitness testimonies, as this has been a major source of convicting innocent people, who have been later proven innocent by forensic DNA.
In 1987, United States used DNA evidence to prosecute and convict a serial rapist. It all started in Florida when a woman was awoken by noise. She woke up and a man was standing over her holding a knife towards her, threatening to kill her if she didn’t comply. While she was being raped she started fighting back, she was cut on her neck, legs, feet, and face. Once she was raped the rapist stole her purse and left her home. The victim reported the crime to police shortly after. During an examination a rape kit was performed and evidence of semen was f...