LSDT400

In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Neil v. Biggers and outlined five criteria that should be used in evaluating the accuracy of eyewitness identifications: 1) the witness's certainty, 2) their quality of view, 3) the amount of attention paid to the culprit, 4) the agreement between the witness's description and the suspect, and 5) the amount of time between the crime and the identification attempt. The criteria that have been set allow various factors into play, factors that would possibly influence visual perceptual experiences in eyewitness testimonies. Various issues come to play as ruled in the Neil v. Biggers case; illumination, duress, distances, and emotions.

        As for evidence, there are two types; physical evidence is basically objects that are found at the scene of the crime, things such as fingerprints, footprints, and/or weapons. Circumstantial evidence is a bit different; this is evidence that is not directly observed during the crime. It may have been seen afterwards, in the hand of a suspect or near them, but not actually observed committing the act with such evidence.

        Looking at DNA as evidence, it can be tricky and may not be the final solution. An advantage to using DNA in court is the need for a small sample; just a minute piece could prove innocence or even a guilty verdict. Once 13 markers are tested, the probability that any two people would have the same profile is estimated to be 1 in 10 billion. There are also disadvantages in using DNA, mostly by contamination during the collection process. Sometimes the contamination can be from the factory itself. Many times DNA is used to exclude a suspect than to prove one of guilt.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/advancing-justice-through-dna-technology-using-dna-solve-crimes

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/188/