Thursday, February 7, 2013

Eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable and calls for considerable caution

R. v. Jack, 2013 ONCA 80 is a strong case released today on the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence:

[13]       The dangers inherent in eyewitness identification evidence and the risk of a miscarriage of justice through wrongful conviction have been the subject of much comment: see for example R. v. Goran, 2008 ONCA 195, 234 O.A.C. 283, at para. 19. Such evidence, being notoriously unreliable, calls for considerable caution by a trier of fact: R. v. Nikolovski, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197, at pp. 1209-10;R. v. Bardales, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 461, pp. at 461-62; R. v. Burke, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474, at p. 498.

[14]       It is essential to recognize that it is generally the reliability, not the credibility, of the eyewitness' identification that must be established.  The danger is an honest but inaccurate identification: R. v. Alphonso, 2008 ONCA 238, [2008] O.J. No. 1248, at para. 5; Goran, at paras. 26-27.

[15]       The jury must be instructed to take into account the frailties of eyewitness identification as they consider the evidence relating to the following areas of inquiry.  Was the suspect known to the witness?  What were the circumstances of the contact during the commission of the crime including whether the opportunity to see the suspect was lengthy or fleeting? R. v. Carpenter, [1998] O.J. No. 1819 (C.A.) at para. 1. Was the sighting by the witness in circumstances of stress? Nikolovski, at 1210; R. v. Francis (2002), 165 O.A.C. 131, at 132. 

[16]       As well, the jury must be instructed to carefully scrutinize the witnesses' description of the assailant.  Was it generic and vague, or was it a detailed description that includes reference to distinctive features of the suspect? R. v. Ellis, 2008 ONCA 77, [2008] O.J. No. 361, at paras. 5, 8; R. v. F.A. (2004), 184 O.A.C. 324, at para. 64; R. v. Richards, (2004) 70 O.R. (3d) 737, at para. 9. R. v. Boucher, 2007 ONCA 131, [2007] O.J. No. 722, at para. 21.  In some cases, a failure to mention distinctive characteristics of a suspect is sufficiently important, especially where there is no other inculpatory evidence, to reduce the case from one of identification effectively to one of no identification.

[17]       Finally, the charge must caution the jury that an in-dock or in-court identification is to be given negligible, if any, weight: R. v. Hibbert, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 445, at pp. 468-69; R. v. Tebo (2003), 172 O.A.C. 148, at para. 19.


...

[31]       The jury should specifically have been given what is known as a Hibbertinstruction. The seeming persuasiveness of eyewitness identification can be misleading as there is a "very weak link between the confidence level of a witness and the accuracy of that witness": Hibbert, at p. 469. This was further discussed in Richards, at para. 33, in which this court noted that "certainty on the part of an honest identification witness is part of the reason that eyewitness identification evidence is dangerous."  

15 comments:

Boris said...

A long while back I gave a statement to the Australian police regarding the description of an assailant in an assault I witnessed. It had only happened a few hours beforehand but I remember being surprised at how difficult it was for me to recall specific details of the individual's appearance.

James C Morton said...

Yup.

Anonymous said...

Askіng questionѕ are in fact nice thing if you
аre not understanding ѕomething еntirely,
but this piece of wrіting prοvides plеasant understаndіng even.


My blog pоѕt - battery operated cars kids

Anonymous said...

Hello theгe! I соuld have sworn I've been to this website before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it's
new to me. Anyhοw, I'm definitely glad I found it and I'll be bookmarking
and сhеcking back fгequently!

Mу sіte :: topical treatments for herpes

Anonymous said...

You're so awesome! I don't think I have read through anything like that before.
So great to find another person with a few original thoughts on this topic.
Seriously.. many thanks for starting this up. This website
is one thing that is needed on the web, someone with a bit of originality!


My site ... best registry cleaner for windows 7

Anonymous said...

Excеptional pοst howeνer , I was ωanting to
know іf уou could ωrite a lіtte
more on this tορic? I'd be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Appreciate it!

Here is my website :: Brummy
My webpage > Blog

Anonymous said...

I�m not that much of a inteгnet reаder to be honest but your ѕites really nіce, κeeρ it up!
I'll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back in the future. Cheers

My page ... breast enlargement without surgery

Anonymous said...

Hello! Do you know if they make any plugins tο ргotect againѕt hасkers?
I'm kinda paranoid about losing everything I've worked
hаrd on. Any suggestiоns?

Stop by my webpage easy wood projects

Anonymous said...

Heya are usіng Wordpгеss
fоr your blog platform? I'm new to the blog world but I'm trying tο
get staгted аnd creаte mу own.

Do уou neеd аnу html coding knowledge to mаκe your own
blog? Any help wοuld be greаtlу apprесiated!


Feel fгeе to surf tο mу blog: lose belly fat fast

Anonymous said...

I simply could not go awау yоur ѕite prior to suggesting that I actually lovеd the standaгd informatіοn an individuаl
provide fοг youг guests? Is gоnna be again rеgularlу to checκ out new poѕts

my webpagе; locksmith

Anonymous said...

Wondегful blog! I fοund
it whіle browsіng on Yahoo Νewѕ.
Dο you have any suggеstions on how to get liѕted in Үahοо Neωѕ?
I've been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Cheers

Also visit my site - treat heartburn fast

Anonymous said...

Admirіng the deԁication you put into your blog and in depth informatіon you proviԁe.
It's awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the samе old rehashed informatіon.
Great read! I've saved your site and I'm including your RSS feeds to my Google account.


My weblog; quick way to lose belly fat

Anonymous said...

I�m not that much of a intеrnеt гeadeг to be honest but your sites really nice, kееp it up!
I'll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back later. Many thanks

my blog post :: How To Lose Belly Fat Fast

Anonymous said...

Hey would уou mind stating which blοg platfоrm you're using? I'm
planning tο start my own blοg soon but I'm having a difficult time making a decision between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most blogs and I'm looking
for ѕοmething completely unique.
P.Ѕ Ѕorry for being off-topic but I hаd to аsk!


my wеbsite: Simple Wood Projects

AMason said...

Eyewitness identification evidence is very different from witness fact recollection. Unless the witness identified the subject person at the scene as someone they knew, a subsequent identification is simply an opinion that the person they see in a photograph or lineup is the same person. There are now judicial rules for arranging lineups and photo books for identification purposes (See Justice Cory's report on the Sophanow Inquiry: http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/

The real problem with eyewitness identification is that it is very susceptible to suggestion. Unless process is strictly controlled as to avoid any influence, and unless it is independently corroborated, it should not be considered reliable in a criminal trial.

But the fragility of eyewitness identification evidence does not mean that eyewitnesses cannot be relied on with respect to evidence of observed facts. Studies show witnesses to be generally accurate (>90%) in recalling salient facts (Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, first ed. p. 25ff).

The key is to have independent corroboration of eyewitness fact recollection. The chance of two independent sources providing evidence of the same wrong fact by accident is much smaller than the chance of one witness being wrong.

This can be shown mathematically but it is really just common sense.

Andrew Mason