Experienced criminal attorneys have long been aware of the inherent unreliability of cross racial identification. Cross-racial identification is the eyewitness identification of a suspect in a criminal case when the witness is a different race than the suspect. Recently, an appellate court issued a written opinion in a New York robbery case involving the defendant’s challenge to the lower court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the unreliability of cross-racial identifications. The appellate court determined that the lower court was in error when it refused the defendant’s request, reversed the defendant’s conviction, and ordered that a new trial be granted.
The Facts of the Case
The defendant was arrested after two white men reported being robbed at knife point. The facts of both robberies were similar, in that the alleged perpetrator approached the victim, asked the time, and then grabbed the victim’s cell phone when they pulled it out to see the time. Each of the victims told police that the man who had robbed them was African-American and about six feet tall.
After his arrest, the defendant was placed in a line-up with several other individuals. One of the victims picked the defendant out immediately. The other victim was unsure until the police instructed all of the men in the line-up to ask “what time is it?” at which point the defendant was identified. There was no physical evidence tying the defendant to the crimes.
At trial, the defendant requested that the judge instruct the jury about the unreliability of cross-racial identifications. The judge refused the instruction, explaining that there had been no scientific evidence presented to the court indicating that cross-racial identifications were suspect. The defendant appealed.
On appeal, the court agreed with the defendant that the jury should have been instructed on the unreliability of cross-racial identifications. In so holding, the court conducted an in-depth review of the scientific literature on cross-racial identifications and the generally accepted position that people of different races tend to have difficulties making reliable identifications.
Not only did the court reverse this particular defendant’s conviction, but it also devised a rule that should be applied to future cases in which the prosecution plans on introducing evidence of a cross-racial identification. The court explained that, when the race of a witness appears to be different from that of the defendant, the court should instruct the jurors when the defendant makes a request. The instruction explains that jurors should consider “that some people have greater difficulty in accurately identifying members of a different race than in accurately identifying members of their own race and whether the difference in race affected the accuracy of the witness’s identification.”
Have You Been Charged with a Crime in New York?
If you are facing a New York criminal charge, you should consult with a dedicated New York criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. At Tilem & Associates, we represent those charged with serious felonies as well as misdemeanors in New York City and the surrounding areas. We have a dedicated team of experienced New York criminal defense attorneys to help you or your loved one face the charges and make sure that the prosecution is held to their high burden. To learn more, call 877-377-8666 to schedule a free consultation.
New York Appellate Court Reverses Sentence Based on Violation of Defendant’s Right to Be Present at Sentencing Hearing
New York Appellate Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Rejects Defendant’s Challenge to Voluntariness of Confession
New York Appellate Court Reverses Conviction Based on Improper Use of Peremptory Strikes During Jury Selection