Defendants who successfully challenge and suppress an eyewitness identification may weaken the prosecution’s case, forcing them to drop the charges or leaving reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds. Challenging unreliable identification before, and sometimes even during, a trial is possible, and our lawyers can help you persuade the judge to exclude such evidence.
Utah allows defendants to present motions to suppress before trial begins, blocking an eyewitness identification that is unreliable and would do irreparable harm if presented to the jury. Judges grant motions to suppress identifications for several reasons, like the witness lacking the opportunity or capacity to observe the defendant committing the crime. In addition to questioning the witness’s reliability, we can also challenge police identification procedures. Even if the judge denies our motion to suppress an eyewitness identification, we may expose the witness’s unreliability when questioning them on the stand or presenting expert witnesses.
Call the Layton, UT criminal defense lawyers of Overson & Bugden at (801) 758-2287 for a free case analysis.
Procedures for Suppressing an Eyewitness Identification in Utah?
To challenge an eyewitness identification of a defendant in Utah and prevent it from being used against you during a trial, our lawyers can file a motion with the court to suppress the identification under Rule 617 of Utah’s Rules of Evidence. We can cite specific reasons why we believe the identification or witness testimony is unreliable and why the jury should not be informed about it.
To successfully challenge an eyewitness identification, we must draft a motion and file it with the court. Our attorneys can do this before the trial even begins. If the prosecution’s case relies heavily or even exclusively on an eyewitness identification of the defendant, getting it suppressed might force the prosecution to drop charges or the judge to dismiss them.
Challenging identification before the trial is crucial so that the jury never hears anything about a possible positive identification. This can have irreparable effects on a jury’s ability to be impartial, even if instructed by the judge to disregard information, and may lead to a mistrial.
Factors to Challenge Witness Identification
There are several factors our attorneys can cite to the judge when moving to suppress an eyewitness identification, and we can argue these factors make the identification unreliable.
Opportunity to Observe
When reviewing a motion to suppress eyewitness identification, the judge will weigh whether the witness had sufficient time and opportunity to observe an individual committing the crime. If the witness admits they only caught a glimpse of the alleged perpetrator, the judge may conclude that they lacked the opportunity to observe, meaning their identification is not reliable enough for the jury to consider.
Level of Attention
The judge will also consider whether the witness was paying close enough attention to the perpetrator to reliably identify them for the jury, given that they may have been distracted by a weapon or some other factor. If a witness or alleged victim was staring at the barrel of a gun instead of the assailant’s face, it is harder for them to say who was behind the gun.
Capacity to Observe
A witness who lacks the capacity, whether mental or physical, to observe the suspect may provide an unreliable identification. Environmental factors might also affect an eyewitness’s capacity to observe, rendering their identification of the defendant inadmissible.
Awareness of Crime
The judge will also consider whether the witness was aware that a crime was being committed and whether that awareness impairs their ability to remember it correctly.
Cross-Racial Identification
Accurate cross-racial identification rates are generally low. A difference in race between the witness and suspect, as well as other factors, may help a judge’s decision to suppress eyewitness identification.
Time Between Observation and Identification
A significant amount of time passing between the witness’s observation of the crime and their identification of the defendant may help us convince the judge to block the witness’s identification or their testimony as evidence.
Previous Identifications
Previous failures to identify the suspect or misidentifications of other individuals generally show the witness does not actually know who did it.
Exposure to Identifying Information or Opinions
Eyewitness identification is wholly unreliable when the witness is exposed to any identifying information of law enforcement’s main suspect, photos of the suspect, or any opinions from law enforcement, and our Utah criminal defense lawyers may cite this when challenging an identification in your case.
Other Effects on Reliability
If any other aspect of an eyewitness identification affected its reliability, our lawyers may challenge it. This rule applies broadly, allowing defendants to suppress witness IDs when none of the previous reasons to challenge an identification apply.
How Do You Challenge Eyewitness Identification During a Trial?
A judge might not grant a motion to suppress eyewitness identification. Even if this evidence is presented to the jury and the witness testifies in court, we may challenge their reliability on the stand in front of the jury enough to create reasonable doubt.
If a witness claims to have seen you commit a crime, we can point out why their testimony may be unreliable. Memories aren’t always accurate, especially memories of traumatic events. We can address this when cross-examining a witness by questioning their account of the incident, such as how they could have clearly seen you based on the distance or lighting conditions, and asking them about any inconsistencies in their statements describing the perpetrator.
We can then present expert witnesses of our own to explain the many reasons why the identification is weak, or how the witnesses’ memories might be skewed.
Can You Challenge Lineups and Identification Procedures in Utah?
Defendants can also specifically challenge eyewitness identification procedures in Utah to have positive identifications excluded from criminal trials. This allows challenges to the processes the police used when putting on a lineup, photo lineup, or other way for the witness to identify the suspect.
When challenged, the court must determine whether law enforcement’s procedures were suggestive or conducive to getting false identifications, meaning results should be excluded from the trial.
Violations of photo array or lineup procedures often lead to false eyewitness identifications. For example, law enforcement must use “double blind” procedures where the officer presenting the lineup does not know who the arrested suspect is. Otherwise, there may be opportunities for conscious or unconscious verbal or physical cues to tip off the witness to whom to pick.
We can also challenge lineups and identification procedures based on the following factors:
- Allowing witnesses to communicate prior to the lineup
- Failure to document lineup procedures and witness responses
- Giving improper instructions to the witness
- Identifiable size, background, or other distinctive differences between “filler” or non-suspect photos and the suspect’s photo
- Not using enough filler photos that resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator
- Post-identification reinforcement from law enforcement
- Whether the witness was repeatedly shown the same suspect by law enforcement.
Contact Our Utah Lawyers for Help with Your Case Today
Call Overson & Bugden at (801) 758-2287 to discuss your case for free with our Provo, UT criminal defense lawyers.
