The prosecutor “believes the reason the witness misidentified Milner is she saw him when she testified at a grand jury hearing.” Inspires confidence in the reliability of eyewitness identifications, dunnit?
And if the prosecutor is correct, so what? It remains as damning a message about eyewitness IDs as any. And if the prosecutor is wrong, and she just picked the wrong guy at the table, the message is worse. Either way, the point is made that witnesses identify whoever they have to in order to make sure that the “bad guy” gets convicted. The ID itself can be utterly meaningless.
Yet, the witness always says, “I would never forget that face…”
Ron in Houston
December 6, 2008 at 5:39 am - Reply
And if the prosecutor is correct, so what? It remains as damning a message about eyewitness IDs as any. And if the prosecutor is wrong, and she just picked the wrong guy at the table, the message is worse. Either way, the point is made that witnesses identify whoever they have to in order to make sure that the “bad guy” gets convicted. The ID itself can be utterly meaningless.
Yet, the witness always says, “I would never forget that face…”
Truly Scary
Someone had to be the perpetrator, and it wasn’t the acquited defendant. Very likely it was Milner. Eyewitnesses can’t be wrong all of the time.