Eyewitness Identification

1
Eyewitness Identification
\identification\photospread.wmv\identification\\w
itness and lineup.wmv\wrongful arrest,
conviction\ronald cotton.wmv...\after innocence
lkl.wmv...\ruben cantu, executed.wmv...\james
giles.wmv...\diaz.wmv...\calvin
johnson.wmv...\arvin mcgee.wmv...\doswell.wmv..
.\larry peterson.wmv...\Alito on wrongful
execution.wmv...\Barry Scheck Colbert.wmv\Techno
logy\video in court.wmv...\hollywood
cameras.wmv\DNA\Timothy Ennis.wmv
2
Witness factors

• Opportunity to view the suspect
• Elapsed time during viewing and time passed since
  viewing
• Physical proximity
• Weather, obstructions to view, etc.
• Physical and psychological factors
• Drives, interests, emotions, prejudice
• Past experiences and conditioning
• Physical abilities/infirmities (vision,
  alertness, drug use, age, etc.)
• Difficulty of cross-racial identification
• Memory is not static -- it is cumulative, can
  change
• Memory can be influenced by prior, concurrent and
  later events
• Was a weapon displayed? (Weapon Focus Effect)
• Did witnesses view photos? Participate in
  drawing a sketch?
• Have others suggested who the perpetrator might
  be?
• Stakes in the outcome -- relationships, ax to
  grind

3
Witness interviewing techniques

• Keep witnesses separate
• Suggestibility
• Peer pressures
• Convey that suspect may not be present
• Maintain absolute neutrality avoid coercion or
  suggestions
• Do not reinforce witness decisions (leads to
  overconfidence)
• Do not allow witness to see the suspects
  photograph

4
Beware the usualsuspects trap!

• Many people have criminal records
• According to the FBI, in 2005police in the U.S.
  made 14,094,186 arrests for non-traffic
  violations
• 603,503 were for violent crimes and 1,609,327 for
  property crimes
• Having committed crimes in the past is a good
  predictor of committing more crime in the future,
  BUT only in a general statistical sense
• Statistics CANNOT yield probabilities that
  someone will commit a certain act
• Even for the same kind of offense, criminal
  record is NOT a reliable indicator that someone
  was involved in any specific event
• Piling up indicators like criminal record,
  presence in an area, membership in a gang, etc.
  can lead to overconfidence in identifications and
  increase the risk of arresting and convicting
  innocent persons

5
Investigative ethics

• Null hypothesis
• Type I error - reject a null when it is true
• Type II error - accept null when it is false
• Duty to avoid mistaken arrest and wrongful
  conviction
• NIMBY -- it IS everyones responsibility
• Misplaced loyalties
• Agency and public pressures
• Desires to promote
• Peer pressures
• Usual Suspects trap

6
Field Identification Showup
7
Field ID showup

• Suspect usually brought back to scenefor viewing
  soon after a crime
• Must occur soon after an incident,usually within
  twenty or thirty minutes
• Assumption that witness memories will be at their
  best
• Issues
• Nature of the event is inherently prejudicial
• Problem of suggestibility, peer and police
  pressure
• If there is no evidence beyond someones presence
  in an area there may be a large probability of
  error

8
Showups NIJ recommended procedures

• 1. Determine and document, prior to the showup,
  a description of theperpetrator.
• 2. Consider transporting the witness to the
  location of the detained suspect to limit the
  legal impact of the suspects detention.
• 3. When multiple witnesses are involved
• a. Separate witnesses and instruct them to
  avoid discussing details of the incident
  with other witnesses.
• b. If a positive identification is obtained
  from one witness, consider using other
  methods (e.g., lineup, photo array) for other
  witnesses
• 4. Caution the witness that the person he/she is
  looking at may or maynot be the perpetrator
• 5. Obtain and document a statement of certainty
  for both identifications and non-identifications.

9
Live and photographic lineups
10
Live and photographiclineups

• Suspect the person in the lineup whompolice
  believe committed the crime
• Filler others in the lineup
• Characteristics of a good lineup
• Random placement
• Suspect should not stand out
• Reasonable number of qualifying participants
  those whose facial and other characteristics
  resemble the suspect. Six is a good minimum
  (suspect plus at least five non-suspect
  fillers)
• Major problems in lineup identification
• Bias suspect photo differs considerably from
  the fillers
• Picking out someone because they look most like
  the person observed. Can be partly avoided by
  showing photos one at a time (see later slide)
• Picking out someone suggested by the officer,
  verbally or through body language. Can be
  avoided by double-blind procedure (officer
  doesnt know who the suspect is see later
  slide)
• Choice is reinforced by an officer, leading to
  overconfidence later, when a witness is asked to
  identify the suspect in court.

11
Photographic lineups NIJ recommended procedures
(partial list)

• 1. Include only one suspect in each
  identification procedure.
• 2. Select fillers who generally fit the witness
  description of theperpetrator....fillers should
  resemble the suspect in significant features.
• 3. If multiple photos of the suspect are
  reasonably available to theinvestigator, select
  a photo that resembles the suspect descriptionor
  appearance at the time of the incident.
• 4. Include a minimum of five fillers
  (nonsuspects) per identificationprocedure.
• 5. Consider that complete uniformity of features
  is not required.Avoid using fillers who so
  closely resemble the suspect that a
  personfamiliar with the suspect might find it
  difficult to distinguish the suspectfrom the
  fillers.
• 6. Create a consistent appearance between the
  suspect and fillerswith respect to any unique or
  unusual feature (e.g., scars, tattoos)

12
Photographic lineups Other recommended
procedures

• Suspect in lineup should be selected by police
  based on information tying him/her to the crime,
  not through the use of mug books, accidental
  spotting of look-alikes on the street, and
  similar procedures. This greatly reduces the
  possibility of error.
• Officer displaying lineup must tell viewers that
  suspect may or may not be in lineup
• Please tell me if you recognize any of these
  persons. The suspect may or may not be one of
  them.
• Thank you for your help. Good-bye!
• Officer must not tell viewers whether they
  successfully identified the known suspect
• Interview and show lineups to witnesses one at a
  time, never when other witnesses may be nearby

13
Witness ID procedures -North Carolina State Law

• Double-blind or automated equivalent
• Sequential
• Written pre-administration admonishment
• At least five fillers resembling witness
  description of perpetrator
• All eyewitnesses separated
• Suspect to be placed in different position for
  each eyewitness
• Signed witness statement denoting certainty of
  identification
• Video or audio record of administration, or if
  cannot, a detailed written account by
  administrator

14
UTEP testing lineupswith mock (make-believe)
witnesses

• A mock witness is someone who never actually
  observed a suspect but is trying to identify
  him/her based only on a physical description.
• If a lineup is unbiased, mock witnesses should
  not pick any certain member of a lineup
  significantly more than another
• Bias indicated when suspect is identified at a
  rate exceeding chance
• In a 6-pack, mock witnesses should not ID the
  suspect at rates beyond 17 (1/6). If there are
  24 mock witnesses, IDs should distribute
• Fillers (members of a lineup other than the
  suspect) should be selected to fit the witnesses
  description, not because they look like the
  suspect

15
Sequential, double-blind lineup

• According to the Innocence Project, of thefirst
  130 DNA exonerations 111 (almost 80percent) were
  due to mistaken ID
• Photospreads allow comparison shopping
• Drawings may not reflect the real suspect
• Sequential, double-blind process (NIJ Eyewitness
  Guide)
• Show photos one at a time, in random order
• Encourages witnesses to focus on individual
  photos
• Detective doesnt know which one is the real
  suspect
• The more photos the better
• As always...
• Tell witness that criminal may or may not be in
  any of the photos
• Do not reinforce a witness decision

16
Texas InjusticeThe Prosecutor Didnt Care
In 1983 James Giles was arrested for the
gangrape of a woman who lived 25 miles
away.Police focused on him because of an
anonymoustip and the fact that he was on
probation forattempted murder. Giles did not
come close to the suspect description.But after
some difficulty the victim identified him. He
was convicted on that alone. In prison, purely by
chance, Giles met the man who called in the tip.
The man realized this was the wrong Giles. The
James Giles who actually raped the woman lived
across the street from her. Police and
prosecutors had learned of this years before but
buried the report in their files. DNA finally
proved that the imprisoned James Giles didnt do
it. The DNA belonged to a friend of the man who
committed the rape. The victims ex-husband
picked the friend from a lineup. The victim now
admits she might have been mistaken Giles was
paroled in 1993 after doing 10 years. The new
Dallas County D.A. accused the old one of not
caring who got convicted as long as his
conviction rate held up. Giles, who helped three
of his fellow prisoners win releases through DNA
testing, was the 13th. prisoner from Dallas
County to be exonerated through DNA.
17
Freed after twenty-six years
On August 3, 2005, Luis Diaz walked out afree
man after DNA conclusively proved thatsemen
found in two of the seven victims of aserial
rapist was not his. Between 1977 and 1979 seven
womenmotorists were brutally raped by a man
whopulled them over by flashing the lights of
his car. Diaz was arrested when one of the
victims, a gas station attendant, told police
that one of the patrons looked like the rapist.
Although several victims initially described
their attacker as a large, Hispanic man, every
one identified Diaz (a little guy) from a photo
lineup, then in court. There were other
inconsistencies as well. In 1993 two victims
recanted their ID and those charges were
dismissed. But Diaz remained in prison on the
remaining counts. Prosecutors declined to say
that Diaz was innocent of the assaults that had
no DNA to compare but decided not to retry him.
18
Thomas Doswell
On August 1, 2005, nearly 20 yearsafter being
imprisoned for rape,Thomas Doswell was freed
after beingexonerated by DNA. Doswell, whowas
identified by the victim and awitness, claimed
all along he wasinnocent, leading parole boards
torepeatedly refuse to release him.Doswell was
first IDd from an8-picture photospread in which
hisphoto was the only one prominently labeled
with an R, signifying a prior arrest for rape
(he had been acquitted of raping a girlfriend.)
The victim also reported that her attacker had a
beard, but Doswell only had a mustache.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 7/30/2005
19
Calvin Johnson, cleared by DNA of rape and
burglary after serving 18 years
The Usual Suspect In 1983, two years after
being convicted of burglary, Johnson was picked
out of a photo spread by a rape victim who
admittedly did not get a good look at her
assailant. Eighteen years later a swab from the
rape kit positively eliminated him as being the
assailant. Interestingly, in 1984, while in
prison, he was acquitted of a 1982 sexual assault
(his name came up because of the arrest).
20
Security cameras
21
Security cameras

• Ubiquitous
• In many public and semi-publicareas
• May be useful when there are noleads
• Suspects can be developed by police and the
  public
• Can track suspect movements
• Limitations
• Images may be grainy and indistinct
• Viewing can contaminate witness memories and lead
  to overconfidence in the identification

22
Remember Efren Cruz? Heres another security
camera case
In November 2004 a Federal court jury
convictedWilliam Cottrell, a Cal Tech doctoral
student, of arson andconspiracy. Fifteen months
earlier Cottrell and two associates,Tyler
Johnson and Michie Oe, allegedly firebombed
andvandalized vehicles at four L.A.-area auto
dealerships, causing5 million damage. They
acted in the name of the EarthLiberation Front
to protest environmental damage caused bySUVs.
At trial Cottrell admitted he was present but
said he didnot personally set the fires.
Cottrells claim was countered bystudents who
said he bragged about the deed. Cottrell was
tiedto a Cal Tech computer that was used to send
e-mails to themedia claiming responsibility for
the attacks. Soon after the attacks the FBI and
West Covina police arrestedJoshua Connole, an
anti-war protestor who lived in the area
andsupposedly resembled a person depicted on the
dealers security cameras. Within days an
unknown person informed the L.A. Times that
police had the wrong man and gave details that
only those responsible could know. Connole was
released but police kept insisting he was still a
suspect until it became painfully obvious that he
had nothing to do with the crime.
23
Composite images sketches
24
Composite images sketches

• Especially useful when there are
  fewinvestigative leads
• Can help suggest or narrow downthe range of
  possible suspects
• Limited accuracy
• Cannot be the sole basis of probable cause
• Issues
• Operator intervention in process
• Limited flexibility
• Witness endurance
• Planting of false memories can affect future
  identification

25
Composite images NIJ recommended procedures

• 1. Assess the ability of the witness to provide
  a description of theperpetrator.
• 2. Select the procedure to be used from those
  available (e.g.,identikit-type, artist, or
  computer-generated images).
• 3. Unless part of the procedure, avoid showing
  the witness anyphotos immediately prior to
  development of the composite.
• 4. Select an environment for conducting the
  procedure that minimizes distractions.
• 5. Conduct the procedure with each witness
  separately.
• 6. Determine with the witness whether the
  composite is areasonable representation of the
  perpetrator.

26
In July 1984 in Burlington, NC an assailant twice
broke into apartments, severed phone wires and
sexually assaulted two women. On August 1, 1984,
Ronald Cotton was arrested forthese crimes.
Evidence included a photo IDand lineup ID by the
first victim, a flashlight foundin his home that
resembled the one used bythe assailant, and
rubber from Cotton's tennis shoethat was
consistent with rubber found at one scene. In
January 1985, Cotton was convicted by a jury of
the second rape. On appeal, the conviction was
overturned because the second victim had picked
another man out of the lineup and the trial court
did not allow this evidence to be heard. In
November 1987 Cotton was retried, this time for
both rapes because the second victim also decided
that Cotton was her assailant. Cotton was
convicted of both rapes and two counts of
burglary and received life plus fifty-four
years. Before the second trial, another
prisoner convicted for similar crimes told
another inmate that he was responsible for the
crimes for which Cotton was convicted. A superior
court judge refused to allow this information
into evidence. (sources
Innocence Project and Truth in Justice.org)
27
Words of second victim, Jennifer Thompson In
1984 I was a 22-year-old college student with a
grade point average of 4.0.... One night someone
broke into my apartment, put a knife to my throat
and raped me....I studied every single detail on
the rapist's face. I looked at his hairline I
looked for scars, for tattoos, for anything that
would help...identify him....I was going to make
sure that he was put in prison and he was going
to rot. I worked on a composite sketch to the
very bestof my ability. I looked through
hundreds of nosesand eyes and eyebrows and
hairlines and nostrilsand lips. Several days
later, looking at a series ofpolice photos, I
identified my attacker. I knew thiswas the man.
I was completely confident. I was sure. I
picked the same man in a lineup. Again, I was
sure. I knew it. I had picked the right guy, and
he was going to go to jail. If there was the
possibility of a death sentence, I wanted him to
die. I wanted to flip the switch. When the
case went to trial in 1986, I stood up on the
stand, put my hand on the Bible and swore to tell
the truth. Based on my testimony, Ronald Junior
Cotton was sentenced to prison for life. It was
the happiest day of my life because I could begin
to put it all behind me.
(Source Truth in Justice.org)
28
In 1987, the case was retried because an
appellate court had overturned Ronald Cotton's
conviction....Another man had supposedly claimed
to be my attacker and was bragging about it in
the same prison wing where Ronald Cotton was
being held. This man, Bobby Poole, was brought
into court, and I was asked, "Ms. Thompson, have
you ever seen this man?" I answered "I have
never seen him in my life. I have no idea who he
is." Ronald Cotton was sentenced again to two
life sentences. Eight years later I was
standing in my kitchenwhen the detective and the
district attorney visited.They told me "Ronald
Cotton didn't rape you. Itwas Bobby Poole."
The man I was so sure I had never seen in my
lifewas the man who was inches from my throat,
who raped me, who hurt me, who took my spirit
away, who robbed me of my soul. And the man I had
identified so emphatically on so many occasions
was absolutely innocent.

(Source Truth in
Justice.org)
Ronald Cotton was released after serving 11
years. Bobby Poole pleaded guilty to both rapes
and was imprisoned.
29
Jennifer ThompsonSpeaks Out AboutWitness ID
Jennifer Thompson, the rapevictim whose
misidentificationsent Cotton to prison for a
crimehe did not commit, now talks about the
problem of mistaken identification around the
U.S. In the process, she and Cotton have become
good friends.
Ronald Cotton Jennifer Thompson
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 5/8/05
30
More Problems With Composite Sketches...
Gary Dotson spent nine years in
prison for a rape he did not
commit. He was identified after a woman tried
to explain away her pregnancy
by claiming she was raped.
Based on her description, a police artist drew a
sketch. The woman was then
pressured to pick out a like person
from a mug book. DNA finally cleared
Dotson, and the woman
admitted that she was impregnated by her
boyfriend.
Kirk Bloodworth spent ten years in prison for the
rapeand murder of a nine-year old girl. He was
identified byone of his neighbors who recognized
him from a compositedrawing of the suspect that
was circulated by police.Authorities were so
certain they had the right man thatthey ignored
the fact that a mentally ill person confessedto
the crime to employees of a mental health clinic.
DNAeventually proved that this person was the
one responsible.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 5/8/05
31
Mug books and photo collections
32
Mug books andphoto collections

• Books and collections ofphotographs
• Sorted by type of crime,gang, etc.
• Can be useful when there are few leads
• Issues
• When there is no independent evidence pointing to
  a suspect there is a much greater probability of
  error
• Picking out someone who looks like or looks
  most like the suspect
• Can contaminate memories and lead to
  overconfidence in the identification

33
Sometimes theres a happy ending...or is there?
On December 11, 1980, a man held up the
BurgerKing restaurant in Orange, California and
shot andkilled the manager. Suspecting that
gang memberswere involved, Orange police
obtained numerousphotos from the LAPD. A Burger
King employeeidentified a photo of Dwayne
McKinney as the killer.Mc Kinney was
considerably shorter than the original witness
description and walked with a limp. Police
arrested McKinney, who had a record for violence
and armed robbery. Four witnesses identified him
at the trial. Although the prosecutor asked for
a death sentence, McKinney got life
imprisonment. Nearly nineteen years later
McKinney was freed when two inmates admitted they
committed the robbery and identified another
prisoner as the shooter. Two of the four
witnesses who sent McKinney up the river looked
at this mans photograph and said that, indeed,
he was the killer not McKinney. McKinney sued
the Orange police, claiming suggestive
interviewing. The lawsuit was settled for 1.7
million. McKinney later became a successful
entrepreneur in Hawaii. In 2007 he appealed for
compensation from the State of California. He
was opposed by the Calif. Attorney General, who
said that the two inmates, who were already doing
life terms, were lying to help McKinney. Los
Angeles Times, 7/19/05, 1/31/07, 9/22/07
34
Delayed identifications
35
Federal Jury L.A. County Sheriff to Pay 18
Million (L.A. Times, 2/16/06)
In 2002 a 16-year old girl was kidnapped and
driven away by a man who demanded sex. She was
able to get away. Months later the girl and her
mother spotted a car that resembled her
attackers. Sheriffs detectives arrested the
driver, Raul Ramirez, a Compton middle-school
teacher. Although Ramirez differed in key
respects from the description initially provided
by the girl, she identified him as the assailant
and he was prosecuted. At trial the defense
produced cell-phone and bank ATM records
indicating that Ramirez was many miles away when
the attack took place. Fortunately, jurors found
Ramirez NOT guilty. Ramirez later sued the
Sheriffs Dept. for violating his Federal civil
rights, claiming that the detective had known
about these records all along but purposely held
them back. Jurors agreed with him again. The
Sheriffs Dept. sharply contested the civil
verdict. "This was a 16-year-old girl who said
she was kidnapped and duct-taped by Mr.
Ramirez," said Sheriff's Chief Bill McSweeney,
who oversees litigation involving the
department. "When two deputy district attorneys
and a 16-year-old kidnapping victim believe in
our case, so do we."
36
Federal Jury Tulsa to Pay 14.5 Million (L.A.
Times, 3/31/06)
In 1989, after three trials, Arvin McGee
wasconvicted of raping a woman two years
earlier. The woman had failed to pick him out of
a photo lineup, but picked him out of another
lineup four months later. This identification,
along with a serological report that did not
exclude McGee as the sperm donor, were used to
convict him. Thirteen years later, DNA testing
positively excluded McGees sperm. A positive
match was made for another prisoner, Edward
Alberty. Alberty has been charged with rape and
forcible sodomy. McGee sued police for violating
his civil rights. He alleged improper
investigative techniques, including a bad photo
lineup and ignoring serious inconsistencies in
the victims description. In March 2006 a
Federal jury agreed and awarded McGee 1 million
for each year he spent in prison.
37
Legal decisions
38
People v. Jerry Noble Kennedy(Calif. Sup. Ct.,
no. S037195, 7/25/05)

• You be the judge
• A witness in a car parked at a rest stop hears a
  gunshot. The defendant exits a restroom and
  passed by within 5-10 feet. They lock eyes and
  the man leaves. The victim stumbles out of the
  restroom, mortally wounded. Police are called.
• The witness describes the defendant as a
  curly-haired white adult male, about five feet
  eight or nine inches, 150 pounds, no facial hair.
  She later helps a police artist prepare a
  composite sketch but is unsatisfied with the
  results.

39
Arrest, identification and trial . . .

• Based on other facts the defendant is arrested.
  He is 37, six feet tall, with a full mustache and
  goatee covering the lower half of his face.
• Defendant's appearance does not resemble the
  composite sketch.
• Police have a LOT of physical and other evidence
  that the defendant was the shooter.
• Days later the witness later sees a photo of the
  defendant in a newspaper, notices the beard and
  fears its the wrong man. But when she views a
  videotape of the defendant's arrest and sees his
  eyes her opinion dramatically changes Oh, my
  God, that's him, and I don' t know how I missed
  that beard.
• The witness positively identifies the defendant
  at a pretrial hearing and again at the trial,
  where she testifies "I just kept saying, ' I
  don't believe I missed the beard, I don' t
  believe it,' "and "Oh, my God, that's the man."

40
Conviction and appeal . . .

• The defendant is convicted and sentenced to
  death. Other than the identification, the
  evidence against him is overwhelming. There is
  really NO doubt he was the shooter.
• In an automatic appeal, the defendant objects
  that the identification process was unduly
  suggestive.
• How did the court rule as to the identification?
  Why?

41
The Courts decision . . .

• Considering the totality of circumstances test of
  Neil v. Biggers and noting that the lapse between
  the crime and the identification was only three
  weeks the California Supreme Court concluded
  that the identification was sufficiently reliable
  to be admitted at the trial.

42
Neil v. Biggers (U.S. Sup. Ct., 409 U.S. 188,
1972)

• Even if the police use a suggestive procedure,
  one must look to the totality of the
  circumstances to determine if a witness
  identification is sufficiently reliable to be
  admitted as evidence
• Factors to consider include
• Opportunity of the witness to view the criminal
  at the time of the crime
• Witness' degree of attention
• Accuracy of the witness' prior description of the
  criminal
• Level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at
  the confrontation (viewing)
• Length of time between the crime and the
  confrontation

43
Twists and turns
44
Freed after 18 years, then busted again the
strange case of Leonard McSherry

• In March 1988 Long Beach police arrested Leonard
  McSherry for kidnapping and raping a six-year-old
  girl. McSherry was identified by the victim and a
  neighbor from a photospread, in a line-up and in
  court. A detective testified that the victim
  identified McSherrys car and his grandparents
  house. McSherry, a previously convicted sex
  offender, was convicted and got 48 years.
• In 1992 McSherry appealed for a new trial because
  of DNA tests that supposedly cleared him.
  Prosecutors said the tests were inconclusive.
  Because of conflicting opinions between defense
  and prosecution experts the court denied the
  motion.
• In 2001 DNA tests proved that George Valdespino,
  already in prison serving time on a 1997
  kidnapping/molestation conviction, was the one
  responsible. McSherry, who had served 13 years,
  was declared factually innocent, released and
  given 481,000.
• In 2005 McSherry was arrested for loitering
  around schoolyards and annoying children. He was
  convicted and got 25 years to life because of his
  prior convictions.
• Meanwhile McSherrys suit against Long Beach
  police drags on. The victims description of him
  and the place she was taken were inconsistent
  with McSherry and his grandparents house. But
  police included him in the photospread anyway.
  The victim testified that she was impatient
  during her interviews with police and just wanted
  to play. She said that she did not identify
  McSherrys car or his grandparents home.
• In September 2005 the 9th. Circuit Court of
  Appeals denied the LBPD detectives qualified
  immunity and ordered the lawsuit to proceed
  because there was "a disputed issue of fact
  whether fabricated evidence was used to gain
  McSherry's conviction.

45
Freed after 18 years, then busted again the
strange case of Steven Avery

• In 2003 Steven Avery, 43, wasfreed from a
  Wisconsin prisonafter new DNA tests proved
  hehad been wrongly convicted ofrape. Avery
  received 400,000compensation. His
  convictionwas based on eyewitness ID bya single
  person the victim andon inconclusive DNA
  evidence.
• Averys freedom was due to theWisconsin
  Innocence Project ofthe University of Wisconsin
  LawSchool. Avery became a high-profile symbol
  of flawed-justice.
• In November 2005 Avery was arrested when police
  found the burned remains of a 25-year old woman
  in his familys salvage yard. DNA testing (oh,
  the irony...) revealed the presence of blood from
  Avery and the victim in her SUV. Averys DNA was
  also found on the vehicles ignition key, which
  had been hidden in Averys room. He was later
  convicted of the womans murder. In May 2007 he
  was sentenced to life without parole.

46
Sometimes a witness mayhave been right all
along...

• In 1985 a soldier, Timothy Hennis, wasarrested
  for brutally murdering a woman andher two
  children the evening after buyingtheir dog. The
  victim was also raped. Henniscould not account
  for his whereabouts.A passer-by helped police
  draw a sketch and later identified Ennis as being
  in the area that night.
• Hennis was convicted and placed on death row.
  His conviction was later overturned because
  overly grisly crime scene photos were shown to
  the jury. There was too little DNA available for
  comparison.
• Hennis was acquitted in a retrial. Elizabeth
  Loftus, a UCI professor and expert on mistaken
  identification challenged the witness ID. The
  defense also showed that a man who looked like
  Hennis regularly walked his dog in that
  neighborhood at night.
• Twenty years later new DNA techniques allowed a
  comparison, and a positive match was made between
  semen from the woman victim and Hennis. Hennis
  could not be retried in civilian court. However,
  he had retired from the Army, so he was arrested
  by military authorities and is pending
  court-martial for murder.