CRJ325 - WEEK 7 - DISCUSSION 7

"Lineups and Other Means of Pretrial Identification"

Read the article located in the course shell titled, “The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony: A talk by Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology and George Fisher, Professor of Law”. Next, explain two (2) major issues that you can identify as it relates to lineups and other means of pretrial identification.

Two major issues that relate to lineups and others means of pretrial identification is relatively associated with the human memory and the subject’s propensity to remember erroneously pertaining to events and details that possibly did not occur.

As such the issue at hand is based upon “original memory” and its formation and ability to be clearly delineated as first consideration of the subject, and second if the subject or suspect is wrongly identified then the consistent pattern would concede to the retaining of the subject identified even though he or she is not the perpetrator.

Basically the unreliability of memories cause a collective pattern of falseness and therefore a weakness in the lineup process. Further the corroboration of a vulnerable memory leads to bias and as thus the re-looking in past causes conflicting of details that mirror misinformation and structuralized imagery in our mind and therefore colors the reception as we view subjects. Therefore, the credibility and accuracy of lineups are affectively colored by reactions, unconscious discrimination, bias, personal feelings and lastly a question of competence.

With that in mind a lineup involves a victim and witness at a police station trying to identify a suspect from a group of five or more individuals. The prevalent issues related to eye witness identification (lineups, showups, photographic identification has subsequently lead to concerns because of unreliability and that in comparison circumstantial evidence (DNA or fingerprints) are more accurate in identifying suspects or proving guilt. Therefore, comes the rub of unreliability and the need to ensure identification processes are fair and reliable. Lack of guidelines and procedure is another hindering factor and effectively cause an ability to challenge due to low reliability and flawed procedures.

Discuss two (2) situations in which you feel that Miranda warnings are not required as it relates to arrest, custody, and interrogation.

Situations that the Miranda warnings are not required as it relates to arrest, custody and interrogation are as follows:

• For routine traffic stops
• No custodial interrogation
• When the officer does not ask any questions
• When asking a suspect routine identification questions
• When questioning witnesses who are not suspects
• In stop-and-frisk cases
• During lineup, showups, or photographic identification
• When the statement is made to a private person
• When a suspect testifies before a grand jury
• When there is a threat to public safety
• When an undercover officer poses as an inmate and asks questions

In effect these situations are relative to police regulations and rules and as such are based on the correctness that is allowed in differing scenarios where the Miranda rights are not needed due to the nature that it does not allow an entrapment phase to be entered and is effective and legal and fair to all.

Thank you.

Felicia

REPLY TO CO-STUDENT

Discussion One

Part 1

I agree that eye witnesses can affectively sway a case against a suspect or defendant but due to its very nature of possible unreliability and lack of a consistent rendition of circumstances relating to the crime it becomes a possibility to challenge, discard and shred the witness.

Part 2

Allowing a witness to taint a case is a case based on lies and the witness has been coached thus this is what makes a mockery of the legal and judicial system. Either you saw, recall in detail or you didn't. This is not a circus or a place for levity. As representatives of justice and legality where is the right to be all by themselves. Ulterior motives exist everywhere you go but in the cases of fair play make sure the true committer of crimes are off the street and protect the populace as guaranteed.

Discussion Two

Part 1

I agree regular questions are routine but when the level of possible threat is evident or felt I would request my Miranda rights anyway. Witnesses are immune unless they are part of the criminal act.

Part 2

I agree with your summation regarding the Miranda rights for routine stops but if sighted in Plain View it escalates and evolves the scenario to give the Rights when arrested. Further the waiver is a conscious and actively tnought out act that makes a clear point that they are caught and cannot get out of the situation but I would still reserve the right to be read my Miranda rights anyway until I have counsel.

Thank you.

Felicia

REPLY TO CO-STUDENT

Reply to Discussion Two

Part 1

I agree that based on sheer questions there is no harm intended or act of entrapment intended just a query for facts.

Part 2

A traffic stop that is done merely because of a slight deviation in driving and evolves to a sighting of tools of instrumentality relating to a criminal act proceeds to the next step of asking them out of the car for frisk and pat down, arrest and continued search of the vehicle. As such the Miranda rights are offered as the cuffs are locked.

Thank you.

Felicia

REPLY TO CO-STUDENT

Answer to Part 1

I agree that witnesses can be unconsciously manipulated by looking from one face to another and picking the ones who are similar to each other and who meet the criteria of the suspect. But in effect is this helping or hindering the correct selection process. Being a reliable witness is important as your left hand...if your memory is faulty, or you are unsure don't just pick anyone they throw at you.

Also, a photo line is deceptive and compromising because if the person's memory is faulty a picture won't invoke or recall memory or details. Further I agree that at its best the witness would not be deemed credible.

Answer to Part 2

I agree that if a story changes and begins to live its own tale then again the witness is not reliable or credible and the additional fodder may not be worth checking into.

Thank you.

Felicia