Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramseyfan
PSU,
While it is true that thousands are convicted on a (weekly/monthly) basis entirely because of eye-witness testimony, it is far from true that eye-witness testimony is questioned when the defense is trying to show mistaken identity.
The purpose of cross-examination is to impeach the credibility or reliability of the witness. I'd say in 99% of cross-examinations, eye-witness testimony is questioned on grounds other than potential mistaken identity.
|
Before my quote is taken out of context, I was simply responding to the statement that eye witness testimony is unreliable and would be insufficient. In fact, eye witness testimony is all that most prosecutors need to convict someone of a crime. Regardless of what phsychiatrists have said or what studies are done, in our legal system eye witness testimony is still highly regarded and acts as very damaging evidence against a defendant. Furthermore, a witness may only testify as to the information he knows at the time of questioning. Prior unsworn-to statements are inadmissible as hearsay unless they are being used to impeach the witness for inconsistencies.
Second, I am well aware of the purposes of cross examination. However, as it relates to "eye-witness" testimony, and given the facts that we have so far, I don't believe the defense has much to work with here. Obviously mistaken identity won't work. That, by the way, is essentially the same thing as reliability. When an eye-witness's testimony is questioned on reliability grounds, the defense is essentially challenging whether the eye-witness was in a position to see what he says he saw. They would challenge the lighting, the eyesight of the witness, whether the witness was under the influence of any drugs or alcohol, etc. I've not yet seen any facts that would support a challenge along those lines, but, of course, it is still early.
As to credibility, again, I'm not so sure there are strong grounds to challenge the witnesses there either. First, assuming the alleged victims called the police, it seems more likely than not that they didn't actually steal the ATVs (of course that's an assumption on my part). Second, even if they did steal them, accusing ST of aggravated assault doesn't help them escape their own liability for stealing the ATVs, so I wouldn't be so sure that the court would allow a credibility challenge based on the alleged theft. As I'm sure you know, there would be a challenge to the relevance of that accusation by the prosecutor, and the court would have to decide if the probative value of the information regarding the alleged theft outweighs its prejudicial effect. Furthermore, as you know (at least under the federal rules of evidence.....not sure about Florida), evidence of past crimes is only admissible if there was a conviction. Evidence related to specific instances of conduct (i.e. the alleged theft, to which no conviction has been obtained) are only admissible to the extent they challenge a witness's truthfulness or untruthfulness. The theft of the ATVs is unrelated to truthfulness because it has no bearing on whether the witness has a propensity to tell the truth.
All I'm saying is let's not just downplay eye-witness testimony and think "oh heck, is that all they have? A guy saying ST pointed a gun at me." I think we need to recognize that in the typical case, that's all the prosecutor really needs to get a conviction. The battle over challenging the credibility of the witness would be a fierce one, and would be one that both sides would brief thoroughly (which neither of us are prepare to do here).