|
Showing 1 - 2 of
2 matches in All Departments
Of the 347 U.S. false criminal convictions overturned so far
through DNA testing, 73 percent were based on erroneous eyewitness
testimony. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong? This book
answers this question. The analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court
eyewitness cases shows that most of the Court's holdings were
likely in error. The Court-like the judges and juries in the courts
below-greatly overestimated the reliability of eyewitnesses against
the defendants and decided their convictions based on unsound
evidence. The facts of the cases and personalities of the
defendants are engaging and compelling. An expert is needed to
inform the judge and the jury of the circumstances to consider when
weighing the testimony of the witness against the facts of the
case. It is a clear violation of Due Process to deny the defendant
the provision of an expert witness in all cases where the
eyewitness testimony lacks corroboration. Research assessing both
cross-examination and jury instructions makes it abundantly clear
that neither can effectively provide courts with the
counterintuitive information necessary to evaluate eyewitness
reliability: denial of an expert is denial of Due Process.
Of the 347 U.S. false criminal convictions overturned so far
through DNA testing 73% were based on erroneous eyewitness
testimony. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong? How Can So Many
Be Wrong? answers that question. The analysis of the U.S. Supreme
Court eyewitness cases shows that most the Court's holdings were
likely in error. The Court-like the judges and juries in the courts
below-greatly overestimated the reliability of eyewitnesses against
the defendants and decided their convictions based on unsound
evidence. The facts of the cases and personalities of the
defendants are engaging, even compelling. An expert is needed to
inform the judge and the jury of the circumstances to consider when
weighing the testimony of the witness against the facts of the
case. It is a clear violation of Due Process to deny the defendant
the provision of an expert witness in all cases where the
eyewitness testimony lacks corroboration Research assessing both
cross-examination and jury instructions makes it abundantly clear
that neither can effectively provide courts with the
counterintuitive information necessary to evaluate eyewitness
reliability. Denial of an expert is denial of Due Process.
|
You may like...
Cold People
Tom Rob Smith
Paperback
R350
R280
Discovery Miles 2 800
|
Email address subscribed successfully.
A activation email has been sent to you.
Please click the link in that email to activate your subscription.