Eyewitness Testimony the Supreme Court, in Neil Essay

Eyewitness Testimony

The Supreme Court, in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S. Ct. 375 (1972), set out some guidelines as to what a court must consider when it is trying to determine how much credibility to give to eyewitness testimony. This case involved a woman who identified a man who she claimed had raped her. The case revolved around the credibility of her identification. The Court laid out the following factors that must be considered in such cases. The Court said that courts had to consider:

Whether the witness had a good chance to see the criminal.

How much the witness was paying attention.

How accurate the witness's description was.

How certain the witness was.

How long of a time elapsed between the crime and the identification of the criminal.

The Supreme Court set these out as the factors that must be considered. It did not, however, say how much weight must be given to any one factor.It also did not say how long, for example, is too long between crime and identification. In other words, it gave factors to consider, but no clear rules for how exactly to apply those factors.

In the case of The State v. Lawrence Edward Moore, 334 S.C. 411; 513 S.E.2d 626; 1999 S.C. App, the defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary and grand larceny. He appealed his decision, arguing it was error to refuse to suppress an eyewitness's identification. In reversing the decision, the court held that the reliability of the witness was not evaluated in light of the factors articulated in Neil. No determination was made that her identification was reliable. Court discretion was not exercised, and instead it was erroneously decided that reliability was a jury issue.

In determining that Davis's identification was admissible the lower court stated: "The court's finding….....