3312 Lecture 4: Eyewitness Testimony and Expert Testimony

Eyewitness reinforcement

effect when officer assures witness of their selection during a suspect lineup (confirmation bias)

Two main issues with eyewitness testimony

1. Unreliable
2. Persuasive to the jury

Unconscious tranference

- person seen briefly in one context may be erroneously recognized in another time and place

'Mystic infallibility' of eyewitnesses

Jurors believe witnesses are accurate, especially if the witness is confident

3 criticisms of eyewitness experts

- testimony wastes court's valuable time
- people know eyewitnesses make mistakes
- such testimony is prejudicial rather than probative

Two issues regarding eyewitness experts

1. "Knew it all along effect"/"Hindsight bias" --> may seem intuitively obvious once presented
2. Anyone can be considered an authority on human behaviour and experience

Most and second most incriminating evidence

First most --> confession
Second most --> eyewitness testimony

Estimator vs. System variables

Estimator --> those which the criminal justice system cannot do anything about
System --> factors over which the CJ system has some control

Duties of an expert witness

- in providing a written report and oral evidence the expert should be truthful as to fact, thorough in technical reasoning, provide honest opinion
- assist court through provision of independent and unbiased opinion

Trial judge's task as a gatekeeper

- define clearly subject area about which the proposed witness has expertise
- make rulings as to what expert is permitted to testify to
- being 'watchful' since accused person's freedom is at stake
- define outer limits of witness's expertise

Threshold reliability

- if only evidence surpassing a minimum threshold of reliability is admitted from the beginning:
1. inherent fragilities of identification evidence become less problematic
2. expert witnesses are no longer needed to explain such phenomena to jurors
3. risk of jurors putting inappropriate or undue weight on the evidence is reduced

Voir Dire

A trial within a trial, used as an opportunity for both sides to present their evidence

Dr. Charles Smith: What was his approach to cases?

- 'think dirty'
- targets from marginalized socio-economic backgrounds
- 'dangerous mothers' --> addicted to drugs, often single mothers

Dr. Charles Smith: Chief Coroner's review of his work

- 20 autopsies w/ serious errors, 12 of which had guilty findings

What inquiry provided a full review into Dr. Smith and the systemic factors involved?

The Goudge Inquiry

The Mohan Test: 4 factors

1. Relevance
2. Necessity in assisting the trier of fact
3. Absence of any exclusionary rule
4. Properly qualified expert

William Mullins-Johnson: Why was he marginalized?

- Indigenous man
- 6'5" and 250 pounds
- Described as different --> partially blind and deaf as child

William Mullins-Johnson: Appeals

- December 19, 1996: appeal got turned down
- turned down a second time for lack of evidence and motive
- turned down third time

William Mullins-Johnson: AIDWYC

- February 2003 --> asked for forensic materials from Smith, which he said he had lost

William Mullins-Johnson: Release

Granted bail in 2005, acquitted October 2007

William Mullins-Johnson: how long did he spend in prison?

12 years

William Mullins-Johnson: lawsuit

filed $13 million lawsuit against Smith

William Mullins-Johnson: Findings of new expert pathologists

- died of natural causes
- bruises were gravitational pooling of blood after death
- signs taken as SA were natural biological events that occur after death
- lacerations on anus made during preparations for autopsy

Louise Reynolds: the crime

- 1997, daughter Sharon found dead in basement
- charged with 2nd degree murder

Louise Reynolds: Dr. Smith

- determined cause of death to be multiple stab wounds

Louise Reynolds: what happened prior to her trial

- 2 of Smith's colleagues learned that 4 respected 'heavy hitters' disagreed w/ his conclusions
- Sharon's body exhumed w/ 5 forensic experts in attendance
- disagreement among experts, so forensic anthropologist called to review materials

Louise Reynolds: when were the charges dropped?

January 25th, 2001

Brenda Waudby: crime

- 1997 --> charged w/ second degree murder of 21 month old daughter, Jenna

Brenda Waudby: Dr. Smith

- determined estimated time of injury was 24-48 hrs prior to death, placing her alone w/ her mother
- 2 years later, charges dropped

Brenda Waudby: why were charges dropped?

- 5 medical experts concluded injuries occurred no more than 6 hrs before death, when Brenda was not home

Brenda Waudby: factors that made her a target

- cocaine addict after separation
- gave up custody of 2 daughters to get life together
- left Jenna alone w/ 14 year old neighbour

Brenda Waudby: lawsuit

- 2002 launched $8.5 lawsuit against Smith and Peterborough police service