Eye Witness Identification in a Criminal Case By Anthony Blackstone Perpetual (C)Copyright and (P)Patent by Anthony Fejfar and Neothomism,

P.C. (PA) and The American People and The People of God and The People as a Perpetual Public Domain Copyright and Patent The use of a line up of possible perpetrators of an alleged crime where witness identification is used, is almost always invalid. First, the police or prosecutor cannot an any way interview or influence the identification witness in any way. The identification witness cannot be coached.

Next, the line up of possible perpetrators cannot be forced to dress or groom in a particular way. Thus, the possible perpetrators cannot be forced to wear the type of clothes that the identification witness has talked about and cannot be forced to wear a beard or mustache, nor can he or she or hae be required to wear his or her hair in a particular hair style. Also, in terms of witness identification, it is also true that recency is a huge factor. That is,

the longer the time from the alleged original witness seeing the alleged perpetrator, the more such a later attempted identification is inaccurate and invalid. C.f., United States vs. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967). See also, Kassin, On the General Acceptance of Eye Witness Identification, 50 American Psychologist 401 (2001). Thus, as a general rule, any purported identification which is based upon an alleged observation of an alleged perpetrator, which is more than one hour old, is invalid. Additionally, any person can potentially use mission impossible type masks or makeup in order to impersonate an alleged perpetrator or to disguise him or her or haeself. Even the use of a fake mustache or hair dye can totally invalidate any type of witness identification lineup. Even

the wearing of different eye glasses can present a different identity and make an identification lineup invalid. Thus, as a general rule, eyewitness identification is invalid and thus is

inadmissable in a criminal or civil case.