A Nassau Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, on October 1, 1985, the defendants were arrested and charged with two counts of Assault in the third degree. Wade and Huntley hearings were held wherein the facts of this case were reported as follows: the victims were assaulted by ten unknown assailants at the Restaurant on Hempstead Turnpike, Hempstead, New York. The complainants went to the Hofstra Public Safety Office (PS) headquarters seeking assistance, since they believed that their assailants were Hofstra University students. The person presently in charge of the PSO, allowed the victims to look at I.D. photos of the students.
A Nassau Rape Lawyer said that, both the victims testified at the Wade-type hearing that each complainant made an independent identification of a defendant from the photographs and was one-hundred percent sure the identification was accurate before showing the photo to the other complainant. There was no testimony that indicated that the complainants talked to each other about possible defendants during the identification procedure. The person presently in charge of the PSO brought the two complainants to the athletic department at Hofstra where they viewed photos of football players and identified another of the defendants. Again, the complainants of child pornography testified that they identified the third defendant in the same manner as in the Hofstra PSO.
A Nassau Sex Crime Lawyer said that, on October 1, 1985, Police Officer arrested the three defendants at Hofstra and brought them to the Hempstead Police Precinct. The defendants were advised of their Miranda rights at the precinct by the Police Officer. Police Officer testified at the Huntley hearing that defendant stated that he was willing to talk without his attorney present. Defendant was not intoxicated and he understood the meaning of the Miranda warnings which were read to him. The Police Officer testified that Defendant stated that he was engaged in words with the victim and pushed him, and the defendant jumped in to break up the fight.”
The issue in this case is whether an “expert” will be permitted to testify with respect to the reliability of eyewitness identification.
It is the defendants’ contention that they are the victims of a mistaken identification by both eyewitnesses, the complainants hereto. The defendants have requested that the court permit the doctor to testify in this regard. The expert witness is a psychologist and holds himself out as an “expert in the field of perception, memory and the vagaries of eye-witness identification.” The defendants’ arguments rest heavily with a similar case, wherein the Court permitted the said doctor to testify with respect to factors which studies have shown are relevant to the reliability of an eyewitness identification.
These factors include: 1. The delay between the event and the identification; 2. stress; 3. the violence of the situation; 4. assimilation of post event information; 5. the cross-racial aspect of the identification; 6. The selectivity of perception; 7. the ‘filling in’ phenomenon; 8. expectancy; 9. the effect of repeated viewings; 10. The lack of a correlation between confidence and reliability; 11. The motivation of the victim to make a correct identification; 12. The motivation of the police to make an arrest; 13. The introduction of suggestiveness through photo arrays; 14. The availability of a ‘zero option;’ 15. The effect of what a witness is told after the identification is made. Rape was not charged.
To be cont….
It is a well settled legal principle that the opinion of an expert in a specific field is admissible due to the necessity of receiving such evidence. If you wish to present an expert witness seek the representation of a Nassau Rape Attorney and Nassau Criminal Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates.