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.