Motion to exclude non-eyewitness identification made from surveillance video or surveillance photograph
This motion relies on social science demonstrating the unreliability of witness attempts to identify people from surveillance videos/photographs and argues that due process and the evidence rules (Rules 602, 701, and 403) require exclusion of a police officer’s attempt to identify the defendant from a surveillance video. Pages 2-4: Discuss studies showing that humans are […]
Mistaken eyewitness identification expert report
This expert report collects and describes cutting edge social science describing the problems with eyewitness identifications including: the effects of poor lighting and distance (p. 5); the effects of a quick exposure and the problem of witnesses’ overestimating the length of exposure (p. 5-6); problems with cross-racial identifications (p. 6); problem if witness previously viewed […]
Brief Discussing the Science of Photogrammetry and Why a Police Officer Cannot Opine about a Person’s Height in a Surveillance Video
This brief challenges a police officer’s testimony opining that a shooter pictured in surveillance footage and the defendant were the same height. The officer based his opinion on his visual observation of surveillance footage and measurements of the height of markings in the store. The Florida appellate court agreed that this was impermissible lay opinion […]
Memorandum to Suppress First-Time, In-Court Identification Under Due Process Clause
Argument that using in-court IDs as the only identification in case is a violation of the Due Process Clause because they create a substantial risk of misidentification. Social science studies cited throughout, specifically supporting reliability concerns (pgs. 10-12) and policy arguments (pgs. 13-15)
Amicus Brief – Preclude In-Court Identifications as Inherently Prejudicial
In-court identifications are inherently suggestive because they imply to the witness that the prosecutor has confirmed the witness’ initial identification. This brief argues that such an identification is more suggestive than a show-up and that the witness’ sense of accuracy artificially increases during subsequent identifications.
Brief – In-Court Identifications are Impermissibly Suggestive
Because of the inherently suggestive nature of in-court identifications, courts should (1) subject them to the same protections and scrutiny as suggestive pretrial identification procedures (pgs. 4-9 of brief); (2) update existing standards and law to align with social science and other, more protective jurisdictions (pgs. 13-22 of brief); and (3) recognize that in-court identifications […]