If eye witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, why is it acceptable in a court of law?
In: 0
Because it’s still evidence and is still relevant. It’s up to the jury (or judge in a non-jury trial) to evaluate how reliable it is, just like with any other evidence.
Evidence is still evidence and the defense always has the ability to cross examine witnesses to demonstrate a lack of credibility to the jury.
Like with all other evidence, the lawyers can challenge how reliable the witness testimony is. If a person with bad vision and a bad memory is the only witness to a crime, then the opposing lawyer can make a good argument to the jury to doubt that testimony. If there a dozen witnesses, then it becomes harder (but not impossible) to argue that they are *all* wrong in the same way.
Police officer here.
Reliable or not, sometimes it’s the difference between proving a crime occurred and not.
When it comes time to a trial, it’s rarely one piece of evidence that gets a conviction.
Sometimes it’s “yeah I saw Lil Stank down by the corner store about 10 minutes before that shit happened.” Then we’ll get cell tower data on the suspect. Then we’ll look around for surveillance cameras in the area. Then we’ll look at the LPR data. Then we’ll find other witnesses to corroborate. Then we’ll question the suspect.
With simple shit, generally the witness is a stranger. While it’s not 100% reliable, people generally don’t intentionally lie.
Virtually no form of evidence is 100% reliable. There is always some degree of potential error or wrong interpretation. Eye Witness Testimony has a greater potential for both of these things than many other forms of evidence submitted, but it is not completely unreliable and so it is a part of the evidence presented.
Trial attorney here.
There’s a difference between “weight” and “admissibility.” The notorious unreliability of eyewitness testimony goes to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. Because the problem with it is whether or not it’s credible and reliable, it is up to the finder of fact to determine those things, which is the jury, or judge in bench trials. If it weren’t admissible then it could never go to the finder of fact to make that determination.
Note that it is possible to make a motion to exclude specific eyewitness testimony if you can satisfy the judge that, by operation of the rules of evidence, it is *inherently* and *unavoidably* irrelevant or prejudicial, but that would have to be because by its very nature it cannot be admissible, not because jurors shouldn’t find it credible.
I know that last part is fairly opaque to nonlawyers so here is an example to demonstrate, but by no means is this totally inclusive of the entire concept. Suppose a witness were expected to testify that when he saw the crime take place, he remembered thinking the perpetrator looked familiar, but the only time the witness ever met anyone in this area was when he was in jail. His cellmate, who he still keeps in contact with, told him the only inmate that tall in their pod at the jail was the defendant, so the perpetrator must have been the defendant.
There are myriad reasons why the above testimony is inadmissible. It’s speculation, imputes hearsay, it violates 404(b), and some other colorable things. As a matter of law, those types of statements are either so inherently unreliable or violate some constitutional protection that they can’t be used, categorically.
However, imagine a witness that could testify that he saw the perpetrator, that he was very tall, and that based on that he recognized him as the defendant. Now it doesn’t involve hearsay, doesn’t violate 404(b), and isn’t speculation on its face. Now it *could* be credible depending on the witness’s answers on cross examination and does not violate the 5th or 6th amendments, so it is admissible and it’s up to the defense lawyer to get at the roots of what makes it unreliable and persuade the jury not to rely on it.
Yes, it gets very complicated and the oversimplified example has some room around the edges that would raise good further questions, but I’m trying to keep it simple while explaining the point.
Latest Answers