StrangeSox

Both sides think its vulnerable?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 24, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) You're equating ALL eye witness testimony with the type where people are 100 yards away in the dark and they don't REALLY get a good look at the person. That's not the case in 99% of cases. And again, reliance on JUST that type of bad eye witness testimony is incredibly rare since other physical evidence comes into play. No, I haven't equated ALL ewt. I've specifically excluded some such as identifying someone you know. What is the source for your "99%" statistic? Does it come from the peer-reviewed literature on eyewitness testimony?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 24, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) Studies have established that not all eye testimony is good, that jurors often rely too heavily on eye witness testimony in rendering their verdict. Fine. I haven't disagreed with you there. Yes, you have. You said that the "common sense" of jurors negates this and that you can impugn the credibility of a certain eyewitness. You cannot say that and simultaneously agree that jurors often rely too heavily on eyewitness testimony and are often unaware of the biases and deficiencies of human memory, even of highly credible witnesses.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 24, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) IT IS. Having someone watch someone commit a crime and testify about it is 100% the best possible piece of evidence you can have. Name me something better! How about any number of cases where people have been convicted based on eyewitness testimony but later exonerated based on DNA evidence? Like Ronald Cotton?

I don't take issue with what you're saying. That Ronald Cotton case is the textbook example because of how difficult it is to resolve it satisfactorily especially in the pre-DNA era that the case took place in. edit: well there was some pretty important evidence in favor of Cotton that wasn't allowed at trial, but it still represents a strong example of the dilemma.

Pitchfork really did not like Neck of the Woods.

Also "prosecutorial immunity"

We go to Starved Rock pretty regularly but I can't recall the last time I was actually on Starved Rock. We tend to stick to the LaSalle Canyon end of the trails, hiking in from the parking lot over there. One of the guys at my work has done some ice climbing on that waterfall before.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ May 24, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) This argument has happened before on this board... SS, what is the end game? Obviously there are situations where eye witness testimony is given more weight than it should. And obviously there are plenty of examples of the mind playing tricks on memory. But that doesn't make all eye witness testimony unreliable. There are plenty of situations where that isn't an issue. Take a domestic violence case. Abused wife is on the stand. The question is: What happened that night? The answer: My husband beat the crap out of me. Do we say, "Wait a second! Eye witness testimony isn't reliable!" In that case, of COURSE it's reliable. She knew the assailant. She was there. Those factors make her testimony extremely reliable. If you asked her to re-create every minutae, every single detail of what happened, then yes, reliability becomes a bigger issue. I made this distinction in one of the first posts. Identifying someone whom you know is a different case than identifying someone you have only ever seen briefly. Better police procedures when gathering evidence and questioning witnesses was one of the major recommendations from the DoJ report. It summarizes some of the issues and offers guidelines for establishing procedures. I am not pretending to know the answer myself; my issue is with jenks' insistence on eyewitness testimony being the best possible evidence period and that 'it's not a big deal' when legal and psychological academia clearly and resoundingly disagree. My personal opinion is that widespread awareness of the unreliable nature of human memory would be greatly beneficial in reducing the undue weight juries tend to place on eyewitness testimony. A problem being difficult to solve doesn't mean it "isn't a big deal" and we should ignore it or pretend that it isn't really a problem after all because juries have "common sense." In one sense, jenks is correct in that juries do treat eyewitness testimony as the best possible evidence. In that regard, from the litigator's POV, it is the "best possible" evidence they can present. But from a neutral point of view, it is far from the best possible evidence in determining what actually happened. That disconnect between how juries view EWT and the unreliable nature of EWT is the source of the problem.

You're still not getting it. It's not about specific witnesses that aren't credible but about human memory itself and its fallibility. Go read about the Ronald Cotton case, then go read any number of reports and studies on this issue. Go read the DoJ report from 98 or 99 on the issue. Continuing to believe that "eyewitness testimony is the best evidence available, period" is exactly the problem. You've made my argument by stating that plainly. You, an educated lawyer, believe this despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary that's out there. An overwhelming majority of jurors believe this and put an undue weight on eyewitness testimony just as you have done. That is the problem, and that's what has led to wrongful convictions. Attacking the credibility of a specific witness doesn't take care of basic misunderstanding of the capabilities of human memory. Jennifer Thompson was a completely credible witness and made a specific effort during the rape to remember her assailant's face. She was 100% sure that she had identified the right man, and her testimony led to his conviction. It was later overturned by DNA evidence. Jennifer Thompson's credibility couldn't be impugned beyond the very issue you're rejecting--fundamental problems with what you've termed 'the best evidence available.' There are solutions to this problem, such as the reforms recommended by the DoJ in the 98 report. Many of the papers and studies contain recommendations. Another important aspect is education and raising awareness of the problems with eyewitness testimony so that the general public is aware of what the research has shown and jurors are less likely to believe in false ideas like 'eyewitness testimony is the best evidence available, period.' How much of the literature on this issue have you read?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 23, 2012 -> 05:11 PM) Of course it is, it's the best evidence you can have. No it isn't. That's the point. I'm going to rely on legal academic research instead of "My Cousin Vinny." You're arguing against a substantial body of work with appeals to 'common sense' while missing what the issue actually is.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 23, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) An alarmingly large percentage of US driver's has received at least one DUI. How is that state derived? I'm skeptical that it may be "number of DUI's/US adult population" which would overstate how many people have DUI's. I believe that the "50% of marriages end in divorce" is similar in that there's a lot of people with 2+ divorces so it is a little misleading.

Have you read any of the papers on this issue? It's not "basic common sense" but an actual problem that leads to bad verdicts by juries. I seriously believe that decades of research has shown that juries rely far too much on eyewitness testimony, that the average person isn't a particularly great judge of the sincerity of a witness, that the average person has a very flawed understanding of human memory and that numerous people have been falsely convicted based on eyewitness testimony. I don't know why you think this isn't a possibility or a real issue. It's an active area of research and concern. What do you have to say it's "basic common sense" and that people aren't overly reliant on eyewitness testimony and that eyewitness testimony itself isn't often reliable? So far you're just saying "no it isn't" without actually supporting your claim.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 23, 2012 -> 04:28 PM) Of course eye witness testimony is important. It's the best evidence available, even if it CAN BE, but is not ALWAYS unreliable. Lots of evidence can be unreliable in your distorted view of how jurors analyze evidence before them. s***ty cops screw up investigations. Numerous cases have been overturned because cops were found to have done illegal things with evidence/witnesses/whatever. Does that mean all evidence in the hands of the police is unreliable? That all facts discovered by the cops are unreliable? No. It means that jurors should be - and are - skeptical of that evidence, but not necessarily to the point of not believing that evidence. It's a weighed opinion in their minds as to how credible they think the cop (witness) is and they weigh that determination with other evidence in the record. Again, you're asking for 100% CSI-level certainty in a system where 100% certainty is impossible. No I'm not. I'm asking you to recognize well-documented problems with eye witness testimony because you keep hand-waving it away as "not a big deal" despite the people in legal academia saying that, yeah, it is a big deal.

Or rising enforcement.

That simply isn't true and what you're claiming is 100% the opposite of what the research shows. It's been shown that juries place an undue weight on eyewitness testimony even if it contradicts physical evidence. The case I already referenced, Ronald Cotton, had a man sentenced to Life + 54 years based mainly on the victim's testimony, which turned out to be wrong. You can read an interview with Jennifer Thompson, the victim who wrongly identified Cotton despite going to great lengths during the crime to try to commit her assailant to memory. If you're dead wrong about seeing me at X place, the jury doesn't know that if you're a great liar or earnestly believe I was there. Here's another article that's a couple of years old from Scientific American.

Any particular spots or sites in Kettle Moraine you'd recommend?

Good defense attorneys are aware of the decades of research on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, but jury members often are not and place a lot of weight on it. As in the Robert Cotton case, the victim can be 100%, absolutely certain and still be wrong. Are you saying that all of the academic background on the reliability of eyewitness testimony is bulls***?

You can pop on over to google scholar and browse a bunch of the studies on this. Eyewitness testimony really is generally unreliable under some circumstances but not all. Obviously you're not likely to mis-remember or mis-identify your mother, but if it's a random stranger that you witnessed, it's pretty likely. edit: As usual, Frontline has an excellent episode on one of the most prominent cases of the failure of eyewitness testimony, Robert Cotton.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:45 PM) Easily avoidable with the wristband deal since it's not a per drink payment system. Again, dumb law. I have no idea why it was implemented and if its effective at achieving those goals. I was just telling you what the law is.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) What a worthless law. Someone define happy hour. A designated time where prices are reduced? I've been to HUNDREDS of bars with wristband deals, how is that not a happy hour? Illinois law requires the same prices from when you open to when you close.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:37 PM) Happy hour is actual illegal in Chicago, and this is one of the main reasons. It's illegal in Illinois I'm pretty sure.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 23, 2012 -> 02:28 PM) It's not unreliable. CSI has warped your people's minds about the requirements of evidence. It's really, really unreliable. It's not unreliable because it doesn't meet CSI super-forensics evidence standards but because people often and easily mis-remember things and get it wrong. This is an active area of research in legal and psychological fields e.g.: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One...amp;tversky.htm

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 22, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) Yeah, I wonder how that worked. And if Rahm really did go to the Sox himself with it, did he do that with the Cubs too? Its great marketing for the Sox as well. Rahm was reportedly pretty livid with the Ricketts family last week.

Congrats!