The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has taken a giant step forward in the reliability of eyewitness identification debate. Check out this excellent article by Mark Scolforo from the Associated Press.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/54fd8955783e4676a9526f7f5dd547a5/PA--Eyewitness-Identification
Psychologists and lawyers have known for years that eyewitness testimony is one of the most UNreliable forms of evidence. Anyone who has ever seen the simple example where 10 people are shown a scene and when queried a few minutes later relate 10 wildly different descriptions of what they saw, can attest that eyewitness testimony is wildly unreliable. Yet courts have based verdicts on such testimony for years and banned lawyers from using these well documented studies to show how unreliable this evidence can be. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reversed the rulings banning these challenges. Massachusetts needs to follow their lead. After all, isn't the goal the same for all states in all courts.... to get the verdict right!
Tell us your opinion. Do you agree that lawyers should be able to challenge eyewitness evidence with scientific studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment