I would imagine there have been thousands of cases where
the defense attorneys at least attempted to call into question the accuracy of
eyewitness testimony. Not only is it an effective trial technique, but it raises a
legitimate legal point. Human perception and memory are fallible. People are sometimes
wrongly convicted based on eyewitness testimony.
A famous
case I can think of off the top of my head was the Sacco and Vanzetti trials of the late
1920s. It was a murder trial, and the key witness was someone on the third floor of a
building who said they saw the defendants driving away from the scene of the crime, even
though at that angle, they would not have been able to do so. They were sentenced to
death and executed in part on that testimony (among other
things).
Many people are offered plea bargains or immunity
in exchange for testimony. In other words, they are given an incentive for testifying a
certain way, which may or may not be the truth. Many of these same individuals are
already convicted criminals, whose testimony, it seems, should carry less weight in a
courtroom.
In my opinion, the court must establish, and the
defense must be able to challenge, the competency and the reliability of a witness that
takes the stand. The judge can offer instructions to the jury about plea bargains and
prosecutorial rewards for testimony, so that it can be weighted in
deliberations.
No comments:
Post a Comment