Eyewitness Identification: A Case Study of a Miscarriage of Justice Narrowly Averted
Kamil Leśniewski
Uniwersytet JagiellońskiMagdalena Zubańska
Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w OlsztynieAbstract
The annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken eyewitness
identification. Therefore, it is not surprising that eyewitness misidentification
is generally acknowledged by scholars to be one of the most common contributors to wrongful convictions worldwide. Despite the fallibility of human memory and its vulnerability to inadvertent or deliberate influence, criminal
investigators and judges tend to give substantial weight to eyewitness identifications. This article presents a detailed case study of a narrowly avoided
miscarriage of justice. In the criminal case in question, eyewitness identifica tion was the only evidence against the defendants; however, the conviction was
almost certain. Fortunately, some unexpected pieces of evidence emerged during
the trial and ultimately led to the acquittal of the defendants. The article
outlines the key factors that can influence eyewitness memory and identification performance. The paper concludes by (1) arguing that human memory is
prone to a variety of errors and biases. As a result, trial judges must be very
meticulous while assessing the probative value of eyewitness identification
evidence, and take into account various factors that could influence eyewitness
memory or decision-making processes; (2) highlighting the importance of forensic education among legal professionals in preventing miscarriages of justice.
Keywords:
eyewitness testimony, eyewitness identification, misidentification, wrongful convictions, miscarriages of justice, lineups, photo arraysReferences
Bucoń P., Starobrat M., Okazanie jako czynność procesowo-kryminalistyczna, „Przegląd Prawniczo-Ekonomiczny” 2011, nr 17. Google Scholar
Criminal Justice Service, Identification Procedures: Photo Arrays and Line-ups Model Policy and Identification Procedures Protocol and Forms, http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/ pio/press_releases/ID-Procedures-Protocol-Model-Policy-Forms.pdf. Google Scholar
Davies G.M., Beech A.R. (red.), Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law, Interventions, Wiley, Hoboken 2018. Google Scholar
Findley K.A., Adversarial Inquisitions: Rethinking the Search for the Truth, „New York Law School Law Review” 2012, vol. 56. Google Scholar
Findley K.A., Implementing the Lessons from Wrongful Convictions: An Empirical Analysis of Eyewitness Identification Reform Strategies, „Missouri Law Review” 2016, vol. 81. Google Scholar
Findley K.A., Scott M.S., The Multiple Dimensions of Tunnel Vision in Criminal Cases, „Wisconsin Law Review” 2006, vol. 2. Google Scholar
Gaberle A., Dowody w sądowym procesie karnym. Teoria i praktyka, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2010. Google Scholar
Gambell S., The need to revisit the Neil v. Biggers factors: suppressing unreliable eyewitness identifications, „Wyoming Law Review” 2006, vol. 6. Google Scholar
Godsey M., Blind Injustice: A Former Prosecutor Exposes the Psychology and Politics of Wrongful Convictions, University of California Press, Oakland 2017. Google Scholar
Gruza E., Okazanie. Problematyka kryminalistyczna, Comer, Toruń 1995. Google Scholar
Hofmański P., Zabłocki S., Elementy metodyki pracy sędziego w sprawach karnych, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2011. Google Scholar
Hołyst B., Kryminalistyka, Wyd. Prawnicze, Warszawa 1996. Google Scholar
Hunter I.M.L., Pamięć, fakty i złudzenia, PWN, Warszawa 1963. Google Scholar
Leśniewski K., Problematyka okazania zestawu zdjęć sygnalitycznych – glosa do postanowienia Sądu Najwyższego z 14 marca 2019 roku, sygn. akt V KK 11/19, „Przegląd Policyjny” 2020, nr 4(140). Google Scholar
Lewin C., Herlitz A., Sex differences in face recognition – women’s faces make the difference, „Brain and Cognition” 2002, vol. 50, issue 1. Google Scholar
Lisiecki M.J., Metodyka okazania. Studium procesowo-kryminalistyczne, TNOiK, Toruń 2021. Google Scholar
Locard E., Dochodzenie przestępstw według metod naukowych, Księgarnia Powszechna, Łódź 1937. Google Scholar
McMurtrie J., The Unindicted Co-Ejaculator and Necrophilia: Addressing Prosecutors’ Logic-Defying Responses to Exculpatory DNA Results, „The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology” 2015, vol. 105, no. 4. Google Scholar
Murphy K.A., Guilty at First Sight: Legislation to Prevent the Misidentification of Innocent Persons in Illinois, „Valparaiso University Law Review” 2019, vol. 53, no. 3. Google Scholar
National Research Council, Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification, Washington D.C. 2014. Google Scholar
Norris R.J. i in., Preventing Wrongful Convictions: An Analysis of State Investigation Reforms, „Criminal Justice Policy Review” 2019, vol. 30, issue 4. Google Scholar
Orenstein A., Facing the Unfaceable: Dealing with Prosecutorial Denial in Postconviction Cases of Actual Innocence, „San Diego Law Review” 2011, vol. 48. Google Scholar
Steblay N., A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect, „Law and Human Behavior” 1992, vol. 16, no. 4. Google Scholar
Świecki D. (red.), Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz, t. 1, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2018. Google Scholar
Tavris C., Aronson E., Błądzą wszyscy (ale nie ja), Smak Słowa, Warszawa 2014. Google Scholar
Thompson S.G., Judicial Blindness to Eyewitness Misidentification, „Marquette Law Review” 2009, vol. 93, issue 2. Google Scholar
Turvey B.E., Cooley C.M., Miscarriages of Justice. Actual Innocence, Forensic Evidence, and the Law, Elsevier, Oxford 2014. Google Scholar
Wells G.L. i in., Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads, „Law and Human Behavior” 1998, vol. 22, no. 6. Google Scholar
Wells G.L. i in., Policy and Procedure Recommendations for the Collection and Preservation of Eyewitness Identification Evidence, „Law and Human Behavior” 2020, vol. 44, no. 1. Google Scholar
Witbeck B., Eyewitness Identifications: Recommendations to the Third Circuit, „Southern California Law Review” 2018, vol. 91, issue 3. Google Scholar
Wixted J.T., Read J.D., Lindsay D.S., The Effect of Retention Interval on the Eyewitness Identification Confidence–Accuracy Relationship, „Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition” 2016, vol. 5, issue 2. Google Scholar
Wixted J.T, Mickes L., Fisher R.P., Rethinking the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory, „Perspectives on Psychological Science” 2018, vol. 13, issue 3. Google Scholar
Wójcikiewicz J., Kryminalistyczna problematyka okazania osób, Departament Szkolenia i Doskonalenia Zawodowego MSW, Warszawa 1988. Google Scholar
Wójcikiewicz J., Temida nad mikroskopem, TNOiK, Toruń 2009. Google Scholar
Wójcikiewicz J., Ekspertyza okazania [w:] M. Kała, D. Wilk, J. Wójcikiewicz (red.), Ekspertyza sądowa. Zagadnienia wybrane, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2017. Google Scholar
Vrij A., Czynniki psychologiczne w zeznaniach naocznych świadków, [w:] A. Memon, A. Vrij, R. Bull, Prawo i psychologia. Wiarygodność zeznań i materiału dowodowego, GWP, Gdańsk 2003. Google Scholar
Uniwersytet Jagielloński
Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
