Lineups and Other Means of Pretrial Identification

CRJ325 Criminal Procedure

Discussion

Week 7

“Lineups and Other Means of Pretrial Identification”  Please respond to the following:

Read the article located in the course shell titled, “The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony: A talk by Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology and George Fisher, Professor of Law”.  Next, explain two (2) major issues that you can identify as it relates to lineups and other means of pretrial identification.  

Discuss two (2) situations in which you feel that Miranda warnings are not required as it relates to arrest, custody, and interrogation.

Read Chapter 10: Lineups and Other Means of Pretrial Identification

Read Chapter 11: Confessions and Admissions: Miranda v. Arizona

===

The American Judicial process focuses on the honesty of the witness in the trial. The common type of eyewitness identification is pretrial identification which occurs before the trial has started. In occurs in police lineup whereby the suspect is in a group with other peoples. In this case, there is the jury and the perjury. The jury is assigned the role of sorting out credibility issues and making judgments ‘whereas the perjury is the crime itself. The perjury can make false statements. It is therefore important for the participants in the judicial process recognize the fallibility of the witnesses’ memories.

The Miranda warnings are from the roots of the U.S Supreme court ruling. The Miranda warning however does not always apply. For example when the suspect has been arrested and is in the police custody or when the suspect is under interrogation. The police custody can be termed as when the police deprive the person freedom of action. In some cases, some jurisdictions will treat detentions differently from those being arrested therefore a Miranda warning is not applicable. In police interrogation, the warning comes before being interrogated. A Miranda warning is only applicable after the interrogation. (Rogers, 2007).

Source: Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D. W., Sewell, K. W., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2007). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31(2), 177-192.

–

Two major issues that I can identify as it relates to line ups and other means of pretrial identification is that our memory is often swayed by our own bias and the recollection of information can be altered the longer time goes by. An example as shown in the article is that if a person were to pick out the wrong perpetrator in a line up, later, they may actually believe that person to be the person that is guilty of the crime they were witnessed to. 

Two situations that I feel that Miranda warnings are not required as it relates to arrest, custody, and interrogation is if a person is not a suspect or is not in police custody. If the officer also clearly states that a person is not in custody then the Miranda warning is not warranted. The Miranda warning was created to let a person know that they have a write to not speak so that they can avoid incriminating themselves with information that can be held against them in a court of law. A routine traffic stop will be considered a situation where the Miranda is not needed unless there is extensive questioning if there is probable cause that there is a crime or illegal activity that is being committed.

–

I think often times the issues are the investigators themselves, as well as the witnesses desire to help and  find the person who they think committed a crime. Investigating officers should Never be the ones to show a witness pictures of potential suspects and the photos should all resemble with no distinguishable markings. Also, the witness should be told up prior to identifying someone that the suspect may not be in the line up. No pictures should be show prior to the line up and a suspect should only appear in one ‘line up’ per witness, when they put a suspect in a second lineup, if they weren’t identified in the first it can cause the witness to think they remember them from the crime when in fact it was from the previous lineup.  

Miranda warnings are usually given after/during an arrest and prior to any questioning. If you are not under arrest then you can be questioned without a Miranda warning, this happens many times if officers need information to get an arrest warrant or solve a case, they will repeatedly say, you are not under arrest or you’re free to go, so they do not have to read the Miranda (I wouldn’t say that is exactly above board, but it doesn’t violate any rights).  You can be arrested without being read your rights, but you should receive them prior to any questioning. If I am arrested on an outstanding warrant for child support I wouldn’t be read my Miranda rights, or at least I wouldn’t need to be.

–

Eyewitness testimony can be hypothetical because the person can be in an assumption that he saw one think, while on the other hand, it is a complete opposite of the event that actually occurred. People usually say they were absolutely positive and correct about one thing, and then discover afterward that they were completely wrong. It has been proven that the identification by eyewitness is not always evident or supported evidence. The human brain cannot reproduce an event as accurate as we all think. A psychological analysis of eyewitness identification has revealed that memory can be influenced by several factors such as fear of retaliation, stress, anxiety and the desire to protect one party involved. However, at the end of the day, eyewitness identification remains the most persuasive sort of evidence considered by most jurors and judges despite the fact that its reliability is questionable (Moses, 2001).

In regards to Miranda rights, the court has ruled that the burden is on the suspect to invoke or request his Miranda rights. When the suspect is not formally in police custody or is not being interrogated, the Miranda rights are not required. This stresses the fact that a suspect has to be in police custody or be interrogated to benefit from the Miranda rights. It’s worth noting that the warning must come before you are being interrogated, so until the interrogation has begun, you are not necessarily owed a Miranda warning.

Moses, R. (2001). Misidentification. The Caprices of Eyewitness Testimony in Criminal cases. http:/criminaldefeinse.homestead.com/eyewitness misdentifaction.html