Opinion ID: 2592762
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-examination May Be Ineffective When the Eyewitness has Made a Mistaken Identification in Good Faith

Text: ¶ 21 In the absence of expert testimony, the method most commonly used to challenge the veracity of eyewitnesses is cross-examination. But because eyewitnesses may express almost absolute certainty about identifications that are inaccurate, research shows the effectiveness of cross-examination is badly hampered. Cross-examination will often expose a lie or half-truth, but may be far less effective when witnesses, although mistaken, believe that what they say is true. [12] In addition, as we recognized in Long, eyewitnesses are likely to use their expectations, personal experience, biases, and prejudices to fill in the gaps created by imperfect memory. 721 P.2d at 489. Because it is unlikely that witnesses will be aware that this process has occurred, they may express far more confidence in the identification than is warranted. [13] ¶ 22 Even if cross-examination reveals flaws in the identification, expert testimony may still be needed to assist the jury. Cross-examination might show, for example, that the perpetrator was a different race than the eyewitness and was also wearing a disguise. Without the assistance of expert testimony, a jury may have difficulty assessing the import of those factors in gauging the reliability of the identification. [14] For these reasons, we cannot rely on cross-examination as a surefire way to uncover the possibility of mistaken identification.