The Wisconsin Supreme Court: Analysis of State v Hibl Case - Essay Example

PROJECT The Supreme Court has been involved with the admissibility/suppression topic of eyewitness identification as recent as April, 2006. The most recent case was heard before the Wisconsin Supreme Court re State v Hibl. In this case, a witness accidentally saw the defendant in the court hallway before the trial. The defense argued that this was a suggestive situation, and, therefore, would promote unreliable identification. The prosecution maintained that the spontaneous meeting increased reliability, saying the issue should be decided by the jury. The trial judge suppressed the witness identification, and a mistrial was also granted. Upon the state's appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals adhered to the suppression ruling in a decision of two-to-one. Anderson, 2006 The issue in this project deals with witnesses to a crime identifying a suspect prior to in-person identifications. One teller had seen the defendant's arrest on television the night before a photo lineup was scheduled. Another teller had seen the defendants' photo in a newspaper story covering his arrest. And yet another teller was shown a lone picture of the defendant instead of a photo array. A police lineup was never completed. This presents a case of power of suggestion. In the case of Simmons v US (1968), the US Supreme Court saw the problem of declining accuracy of identification after witnesses had viewed pictures of suspects. The court ruled that seeing a picture may have a detrimental effect on identification accuracy because"the witness is apt to retain in his memory the image of the photograph rather than of the person actually seen" (quoted in Brown, Deffenbachher, & Sturgill, 1977, p. 312) Eyewitness testimony can be an important tool in the field of justice. However, it can also convict innocent people. In 1991, the percentage was estimated to be at 45% (Loftus & Ketcham, 1991). According to more recent studies, some experts say we are closer to 1% today. This is undoubtedly attributed to the introduction of DNA and the modern technologies now available to forensic scientists. The profiling of DNA was introduced in 1984 by Alec Jeffreys, a renowned geneticist at the University of Leicester, England. Jeffreys' genetic fingerprinting was used to convict a murderer in England in 1988. Today, a DNA sample is one of the most dependable techniques used to apprehend a suspect in a criminal case. Psychology in law states that the use of eyewitness testimony alone is the cause of convicting innocent people. Psychologically, body language and innocent remarks made by officials showing photos and conducting lineups can send unintended subliminal messages to the witness. The witness' level of confidence can be inspired by a perception that the police must be right, because this is what they're suggesting to be true. This can distort a person's memory. A 1997 study led by the National Science Foundation proved that a distorted memory can now fail to know recollect accurately. Studies have also revealed that when the victim is the witness, he has an aggressive desire to nab a perpetrator. In this scenario, they are extremely sensitive to any signals they receive from authorities. If the police have a person in mind, they can unknowingly convey that message to the victim (Loftus, 1998). This suggestibility is the normal tendency of people to agree with what they perceive to be what the authority figure wants to hear (Sadava & McCreary, 1997). Showing a lone photo to a witness sends the subliminal message that 'we believe this is the guy.' Showing a photo array can send the same signal..'one of these people is the one.' Witnesses can sometimes make rash decisions so as to get the whole process over with. For all these reasons, most law enforcement officials would contend that the identifications of the three tellers should be suppressed in court. With all its faults, eyewitness testimony can still be a strong tool. Each individual can see the same event differently (William, 1999). To assist in the avoidance of false identifications, several suggestions have been made by conducted studies on this issue. In lineups and photo arrays, the witness should be told that it's possible that the perpetrator may not even be among the individuals being shown. Secondly, the array of suspects shown should be made up of people all fitting the witness' recollection. If the witness claims the culprit is a tall man, then there shouldn't be any short men introduced into a lineup. A third suggestion is to have an interviewer who is unknowing of the case facts. An interviewer armed with all the scientific evidence and case facts can influence the witness unintentionally (Wells, 1998). This removes the act of the interviewer making suggestions with body language or voice inflection. Fourthly, the witness should be asked how they picked their chosen suspect. This could help to rid error possibilities. Lastly, nothing at all should be said to the witness regarding accuracy after they have made their selection. This could possibly affect the witness' testimony at a later time. Questioning a witness is an integral factor in the developing process of the testimony system. It's important to ask uncomplicated questions; be simple and clear. Accurate answers to clear questions tend to make the witness credible. These answers can be used for cross-referencing the testimony's validity. The questioning must be done without hostility or accusations. This will avoid the witness to experience anxiety snd create an non-credible witness (Sadava & McCreary). When questioning a witness, attention must be given to the wording so as not to confuse the witness or provide the opportunity for false information to be given. Eyewitness testimony can still be a great asset and provide valuable information to law enforcement authorities. However, while investigators are winding their way through the process, it's imperative to adhere to the guidelines put in place for the benefit of both the interviewer and the witness. If witness identification is conducted properly, legal authorities and prosecutors will receive the proper information to make effective judgments. It must always be kept in mind, however, that possible errors will occur due to false memory recollections and witnesses who become overly emotional and want to see someone punished quickly. There must also be awareness that jurors tend to place a large belief in eyewitness testimony, so the accuracy of the witness is paramount. With the correct procedure in place, the right defendant is charged with the crime. The combination of correct procedure dealing with eyewitnesses and the advanced stages of today's forensic technologies can ensure that all are treated fairly and that the wrong person isn't charged and incarcerated for a crime he didn't commit. Sycamnias, 1999 REFERENCES CITED Anderson, Tony, April 19, 2006 New ID case tests Breadth of Dubose Wisconsin Law Journal http://www.wislawjournal.com/archive/2006/0419/dubose.html Pezdek, K. & Blandon-Gitlin, I. Claremont Graduate University Legal & Criminology Psychology http://www.cqu.edu/ Sycamnias, Evan, 1/9/99 Social Psychology Principles Can Be Used to Facilitate Eyewitness Testimony Australian Law Library http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc51.html Read More