Courts have long acknowledged the dangers inherent in eyewitness identification testimony. ‘‘It is widely accepted by courts, psychologists and commentators that ‘[t]he identification of strangers is proverbially untrustworthy.’ ’’ ‘‘[T]he single most important factor leading to wrongful conviction in the United States . . . is eyewitness misidentification.’’ Academicians concur, noting that jurors often find eyewitness identification testimony convincing and assume that it is reliable, making eyewitness misidentification the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the United States. As many as half of all wrongful convictions result from false identifications.

Defense attorneys instinctively understand that, other than evidence of a confession, eyewitness identification testimony is often the most damning proof faced by their clients at trial. Because it may be so difficult to shake an eyewitness through cross-examination alone, counsel need to consider the full panoply of remedies available. Exclusion of that testimony, of course, is the optimal strategy. Recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court raised the bar for the suppression of eyewitness testimony on due process grounds. In Perry v. New Hampshire, the court held that the trial judge is not obligated to make a preliminary determination of the reliability of the identification unless the defense first establishes that governmental misconduct brought about the suggestive identification of the defendant.

Please see full alert below for more information.