Challenging Eyewitness Identifications in California Federal Bank Robbery Cases

Challenging Eyewitness Identifications in California Federal Bank Robbery Cases

Eyewitness misidentification is a huge problem in criminal cases. It is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions in the United States. Many innocent people have been wrongly convicted based on faulty eyewitness testimony. This is especially true in federal bank robbery cases, where eyewitnesses are often asked to identify masked perpetrators. In California, defense attorneys have had some success in challenging eyewitness identifications in these cases by focusing on suggestibility, improper procedures, and reliability issues.

The Problem of Eyewitness Misidentification

Studies show eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. Human memory and perception are imperfect – we don’t record experiences like a video camera. Memories can change over time and be manipulated by external factors. Yet juries tend to place great weight on eyewitness identifications, even though they are frequently wrong. In California, this has led to many wrongful convictions in bank robbery cases based on mistaken ID’s.

For example, in People v. Kurylczyk¹, the defendant was convicted of bank robbery based on a witness picking him out of a photo lineup. It later came out the lineup was unduly suggestive because the defendant’s photo stood out. The conviction was overturned because the identification procedure was biased. In many cases like this, well-meaning witnesses sincerely believe they are identifying the right person, when in fact they are wrong.

Suggestibility of Lineups and Photo Arrays

A common defense in misidentification cases is to challenge the suggestibility of the lineup or photo array used. Police must use fair, non-suggestive procedures when asking witnesses to identify suspects. But sometimes intentional or unintentional cues influence the witness to pick out the person the police suspect. For example, in U.S. v. Rincon², a witness identified the defendant after being shown a photo array with the defendant’s photo in the center. The 9th Circuit called this improper because it drew attention to the defendant’s photo.

Other suggestibility factors that can invalidate an identification include:

• Only one photo of the suspect is shown
• The suspect’s photo looks different from the others
• Police statements or body language influence the witness
• The witness is told they must pick someone

In cases like this, a defense expert can educate the jury on suggestibility issues. The defense can also scrutinize the identification procedure for bias and improper police conduct. Suppressing an unreliable lineup identification can cripple the prosecution’s case.

Unreliability Factors

Even if police use proper, non-suggestive procedures, eyewitness identifications can still be challenged as unreliable. Identification evidence that is sufficiently unreliable violates due process and should be excluded. Courts look at factors like:

• Distance and lighting when the witness saw the perpetrator
• Duration of observation
• Time elapsed before identification
• Accuracy of prior descriptions from the witness
• Certainty expressed by the witness
• Other facts like disguises worn by the robber

For example, identifications are less reliable when the crime occurred quickly, the perpetrator’s face was obscured, or the witness’s initial description was inaccurate. By analyzing these factors, the defense can argue the identification lacks sufficient indicia of reliability. This happened successfully in People v. McDonald³, where a witness ID was excluded from a robbery trial.

Cross-Racial Identifications

Another recurring issue in bank robbery cases is cross-racial identification. Eyewitnesses are less accurate when identifying perpetrators of a different race. However, research shows people are unaware of this deficiency. So white witnesses may confidently identify black defendants even when mistaken. The jury needs to be educated about cross-racial ID issues through expert testimony. For example, in U.S. v. Stevens⁴, the court allowed expert testimony on cross-racial identification where a white witness ID’d a black defendant.

Police Lineup Procedures

To protect against unreliable identifications, California law and the U.S. Constitution regulate police ID procedures. Improper procedures that create unfair suggestibility may result in suppression of the identification evidence. Important rules include:

• The right to have counsel present at live lineups
• Only one suspect per lineup
• Unbiased instructions to the witness
• Documenting the identification procedure
• Fair composition of lineup fillers

Violations of these rules can be grounds for challenging an identification. Defense lawyers thoroughly investigate the identification process for any deviations from proper protocols.

Conclusion

Mistaken eyewitness identifications have contributed to many wrongful convictions in California federal bank robbery prosecutions. But by focusing on suggestibility, reliability, and procedural issues, criminal defense lawyers can challenge unreliable ID’s and avoid unfair verdicts against their clients. Competent counsel educated on eyewitness memory, psychology, and identification procedures are key to protecting the innocent.

References

¹ People v. Kurylczyk
² U.S. v. Rincon
³ People v. McDonald
⁴ U.S. v. Stevens