dc.contributor.author |
Sonenshein, David A. |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Nilon, Robin |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2010-12-08T21:36:43Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2010-12-08T21:36:43Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2010 |
|
dc.identifier.citation |
89 Or. L. Rev. 263 (2010) |
en_US |
dc.identifier.issn |
0196-2043 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/10885 |
|
dc.description |
42 p. |
en_US |
dc.description.abstract |
It is time to change the law governing lineup eyewitness
identification procedures and the admission at trial of eyewitness
identifications. Over the last forty years, forensic science has
developed considerably while the law governing lineups has remained
largely calcified. The advent of DNA typing has underscored the
unreliability of lineup identifications. The authors of one study
estimate that the convictions of seventy-five percent of those
defendants exonerated through the use of DNA evidence were based
on erroneous eyewitness testimony. The unreliability of eyewitness identifications is revealed most dramatically in sexual assault cases,
which often include both victim identification testimony and physical
evidence from which the assailant’s DNA can be determined. DNA
evidence has also exonerated many defendants whose convictions for
other crimes (some carrying a capital sentence) were based on flawed
eyewitness identifications. Improved lineup identification procedures
and more stringent admissibility standards can help reduce the
number of individuals wrongly convicted through erroneous
eyewitness identification. |
en_US |
dc.language.iso |
en_US |
en_US |
dc.publisher |
University of Oregon Law School |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Wrongful convictions |
|
dc.subject |
Judicial error |
|
dc.subject |
Eyewitness identification |
|
dc.title |
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 89, No. 1, p. 263-304 : Eyewitness Errors and Wrongful Convictions: Let’s Give Science a Chance |
en_US |
dc.title.alternative |
Eyewitness Errors and Wrongful Convictions: Let’s Give Science a Chance |
en_US |
dc.type |
Article |
en_US |