I was born and raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I graduated from the George Washington Carver High School for Engineering and Science in 1993. I want to collage at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and graduated io 1998, with a B.S. in physics and a minor in mathematics. After taking some graduate classes, I moved back to the Philadelphia area in 1999. In March of 2000, I started working at Dupont Marshall Laboratory in Philadelphia. On September 12, 2000, a home-invasion robbery occurred in Southwest Philadelphia. At the time, I was at work and had evidence to prove it. On February 20, 2002, 18 months later, the investigating detectives put my photograph in an array of 8 photos and showed it to three of the victims. Two of them picked my photo out; one of them narrowed it down to two, including mines. I was arrested on March 6, 2002. See FACTS RELEVANT TO IDENTIFICATION. I started a jury trial in February of 2003. It ended in a hung jury - the jury didn't unaninnously conclude I was ever in the victim's house. In January of 2004, I started a second jury trial and was found guilty. On March 11, 2004, I was sentenced to 48% to 97 years in prison. I had no prior felony convictions. I was arrested and convicted based primarily - if not solely - on the eyewitness identification of the three victims. A little over a year after being sentenced, I came across an article from the Philadelphia Daily News on mistaken identifications . The article was about people who had been wrongly arrested in Philadelphia because of the problems with the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence and the procedures used by the Philadelphia Police Department. It was the first piece of the puzzle to make sense of how I ended up in prison for a crime I did not commit. The article set me on a path to learn all I could about the psychology of eyewitness identifications, starting with the references in the article. I obtained a copy of a September -2003 Manual by the National Institute of Justice titled Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement, which was referred to in the daily news article . According to this manual, almost the entire procedure in which the
detectives handled the identification process in my case was contrary to Department of Justice recommendations. The NIJ Manual had references to psychological studies. In November of 2005, I wrote the American Psychological Association in Washington, D.C., which published many of the studies in the NIJ Manual. The APA provided with me five articles published in journals about studies that further revealed how there, was no way I should be in prison with a 48% to 97 year sentence based on an identification that was made 18 months after the crime [3-7], I also began obtaining law reviews through a program at all state run libraries (which has since bean severely restricted). These law reviews revealed errors that my attorney made, the misunderstanding that the jury likely had about the reliability of the identification evidence, problems with the jury instructions, the process leading to my identification, and how the prosecutor manipulated the psychology of the identification evidence to his advantage. Over the years, I obtained several law reviews through this program and other psychological studies off the internet from family [8-13]^ Under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law, I obtained copies of police directives from the Philadelphia Police Department in November of 2011. Directive # 33 is entitled "Police and Suspect Photographs"; Directive # 135 is entitled "Rules of Discovery" [14-15]. From the dates on the Directives, Philadelphia has still not updated its policies regarding the procedures it uses to identify people. Moreover, the detectives failed to follow the policy in my case. In November or December of 2011, the computers in the prison law library switched from West Law to LexisNexis . The new system had two treatises on criminal law, which had sections on identification procadures and avidence. Understanding Criminal Procedure, edited by Dressier & Michaels (Matthew Bender, 5th ed. , 2010); Criminal Defense Techniques, edited by Cipes, Bernstein, & Hall (Matthew Bander, rsiV. ed. 2012) [16-17]. In early 2012, I obtained a copy of The Report of the Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions released by the Joint State Government Commission of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in September 2011 . In September of 2012, through the inter-library loan program, I obtained the book Eyewitness Identification, by Elizabeth Loftus, who is considered a pioneer in
tne field . Most recently, I obtained a report by the National Academy of Sciences, entitled Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification, publisiisd in 2014 . I obtained the report in April of 2016- I also got a copy of tne June 18. 2010 Report of the Special Master, commissioned by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in 2016 . There are many opinions from different courts, one of them over 100 years old, that recognize the dangers of convicting someone based on identificafcion evidence- Even though I used tnese cases, and the studies, in my arguments, it seems the courts will only address the problem when an expert in the field of psychology of eyewitness identification testifies, or provides a statement, spacifically applying fco the science to my case. I am seeking the help of an expert on eyewitness identification to review my case and prepare a statement. I also want to connect with other people who were convicted based on identification to begin pushing for changes in the iaws leadings to so many unjust convictions. Outdated decisions of the United States Supreme Court are one of tne main sources of the problem - so far, it refuses to review its 1967 rulings and acknowledge all the scientific evidence that has been produced since that time.
FACTS RELEVANT TO IDENTIFICATION September 12, 2000: A home-invasion robbery occurred at the home of Stephanie Miliar ('Miller'). In the house were her three daughters and the oldest dauglnter's boyfriend. A total of 4 perpetrators ware involved. The avidence gives no clear indication of how long the ordeal lasted.
2. September 13, 2000: The victims/eyewitnesses gave descriptions of the perpatrators to Police Officer Kitz, while thay ware all together and could hear each other's descriptions. N.T. 2/19/03, pp. 92, 112-113; N.T. 1/20/04, pp. 132-153. The Officer then transported them to the police station whether fchay made formal, individual statamcnts describing the perpatrators again and viewed approximately 100 photos on an computer imaging device. N.T. 1/21/04, pp. 63-64.
3. October 5, 2000: Miller and her oldest daughter, L. Thomas, helped make composite sketches, by picking facial features off of other mug shots. Miller made one of the perpatrator tatar identified as Selwyn Brown, and L. Thomas made one of the perpetrator alleged to be Saunders and a tatoo alleged to resemble one on the arm of the perpetrator alleged to be Harlan Smith ('Smith'). N.T. 1/20/04, pD. 58-59, 65-68, 70-71. They also viewed another 50 to ICQ photos on the computer imaging device. At this time, L. Thomas mistakenly identified Bashawn (or Rashawn) Groves. N.T. 1/21/04, pp. 46-43 .
4. March 1, 2001: Bashawn Groves was arrested. N.T. 1/22/04, p. 50
5. April 17, 2001; Approximately 7 months after the home-invasion robbery. Miller sees Browm at a club, follows him outside, and writes down his license plate number. She gives the number to the police, who obtained a photo of Brown and put it in a photo array. Brown was identified by Miller, L. Thomas, and another daughter, T. Thornas on April 17, 2001. N.T. 1/15/04, pp. 36-40.
6. T. Thomas testified to seeing Brown's photo in 2 separate photo arrays and was told that she picked the right person. N.T. 2/19/03,
pp. 57-60, 61.
7. April 25, 2001: Brown was arrested whan he went to his appointment with his parole officer at the Probation & Parole Office by Detective Owens, among others. N.T. 1/21/04, p. 16.
8. From May 2001 to July 2001: Brown talked to Saunders, Reginald Nasmith, and Brian Prout on the phone, and they visited him, along with Kevin Holmes, at S.C.I. Graterford. N.T. 9/15/04, pp. 31-41; N.T. 9/20/04, p. 155.
9. July 1, 2001: Saunders, Nesmith, and Holmes visited Brown, and others, at S.C.I. Gratarford. N.T. 9/15/04, pp. 38-44.
10. July 2, 2001: Brown's preliminary hearing was bald at the 1801 Vine Street Courthouse, in which, according to the Commonwealth's theory, there was an attempted escape, attempted murder, and intimidation of witnesses. Nesmith and Holmes ware arras cad at the scene. The police had a "flash" that there ware 4 black males at the scenw. with a description of 2 of them. Commonwealth v. Prout, MC # 0305-5424, 0305-5425, N.T. 4/22/04, pp. 33-36. Miller and her family ware present at the hearing, as well as Bashav/n Groves and his family. N.T. 9/13/04, p. 218; N.T. 9/15/04, pp. 151, 153.
11. July 2, 2001: Miller identified Nesmith as being inside the courthouse and to seeing Holmes outside after the hearing. N.T. 9/13/04, pp. 219, 221-222. After the hearing, Miller was going to her car in the parking lot, looked up the street and claimed to see Nesmith, Holmes, and a third man coming down the street with guns. She said Nesmith had on a white sweathshirt, Holmes had on a green plaid shirt, and the third man, later identified as Prout, had on a royal blue sweatshirt and hat. N.T. 9/13/04, pp. 225226. She saw 3 men from about a half a block away. N.T. 9/14/04, pp. 59, 61.
12. July 2, 2001: L. Thomas said she saw 2 people outside the courthouse; one with a white sweatshirt, and onewith a sweatshirt and jeans. N.T. 9/14/04, pp. 269, 278, 283. She originally told Detective Michael she saw 3 men outside, 2 of which ware in the courthouse. N.T. 9/14/04, pp. 325-326. She also mistakenly identified Holmes at the police station. N.T. 9/14/04, pp. 272276; N.T. 9/22/04, pp. 45-48.
13. July 2, 2001: Cynthia Groves (sister of Bashawn Groves) said she saw 3 people, one with' a white sweatshirt, one with a blue shirt and hat, and one with a peach shirt and white pants. N.T. 9/15/04, pp. 177, 189.
14. July 2, 2001: Court Security Officer Phillip Schmear said ha saw Nesmith and Holmes in the courthouse. N.T. 9/17/04, p. 70. Schmear said Holmas had on a black and white checkered shirt with a green t-shirt underneath, and Nesmith had on a white sweatshirt with a logo. N.T. 9/17/04, p. 71. Schmear, who was the first to call the police, reported a total of 4 black males in a tan Oldsmobile with guns; he had descriptions of 2 out of the 4 men, and saw 2 himself. N.T. 9/17/04, pp. 82, 85, 88. Officer Wialand also testified that there were 4 males present. N.T. 9/20/04, pp. 7071.
15. July 2, 2001: Bashawn Grovas was released•from custody after L. Thomas admitted she identified the wrong man. N.T. 9/15/04, pp. 151-152.
16. July 5, 2001: Lieutenant Knauar of S.C.I. Gratarford printed and faxad a DC-1 (classification summary) of Brown to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. N.T. 9/15/04, pp. 94-95. •
17. July 17, 2001: The Pniladalphia District Attorney's Office requested that Brown's mail be monitored. N.T. 1/21/04, p. 132.
18. August 9, 2001: A line-up was conducted including' Holmes. Miller, T. Thomas, and Groves did not identify him. N.T. 9/14/04 pp. 7476; N.T. 9/15/04, p. 197; N.T. 9/20/04, pp. 27-28, 39.
19. September 6, 2001: Court Security Officer Schmeei: identified Holmes in a line-up. N.T. 9/17/04, pp. 99-100; " '-"'-^^
20. October 1, 2001: Brown's phone and visiting records from S.C.I. Gratarford ware printed and provided to the District Attorney's Office. N.T. 9/20/04, p. 183.
21. Octobar 2, 2001: A preliminary hearing was held for Brown, Nesmith, and Holmes for attempted escape, attempted murder, intimidation of witnesses and other related charges.
22. A.D.A. Beradinalli (who prosecuted both cases) acknowledged that Saunders came to be a suspect in the homa-invasion case through the Investigation of the escape case. When Central Detectives conducted their investigation of the escape case, they obtained Saunders' Bureau of Motor Vehicles ('BMV') Photo and biographical data. This information was turned over to Beradinelli. Being familiar with the home-invasion case, he turned the information over to the detectives in the home-invasion case. N.T. 1/26/04, pp. 68-69; also sac Saunders v. Tennis, et al., Mo. 09-CV-01916 (E.D.Pa. 2010), N.T. 9/8/10, p. 13 (testimony of Beradinelli in Federal Habeas Corpus proceedings). The dates on which Beradinelli received this information from Central Detectives and provided it to the other detectives was never disclosed.
23. According to the detectives on the attempted escape case, they never used Saunders' BMV Photo in an array, although they only had 2 out of 3 or 4 suspects Involved in the crime, Also, that 2 people that were in custody visitad S.C.I. Gratarford the day before tha attempted escape along with Saunders. According to Detective Owens (of the home-invasion case), a Detective Bernowski showed the victims a photo array for tha attamptad escape case. N.T. 1/22/04, pp. 16, 50. This photo array is not part of the record in either case, it is not known whan it was displayed, and there is no record of wnat pictures were inciudad in it.
24. Saunders was charged in the attemptad escape case in April of 2003 (2 months after his first trial in the home-invasion case resulted in a hung jury). The Commonwealth proceded on the theory that Saunders was not at the scene of the crime on July 2, 2001. It was alleged that he planned it, based on 2 phone calls, less than 15 minutes each. The record does not show that they ever attempted to eliminate Saunders as being one of tha 3 or 4 suspects at the scene.
Detective Owens did not remember seeing the BMV Photo in the file. N.T. 1/22/04, p. 17. Detective Fraeland (of the home-invasion case) testified that Beradinelli gave them the Graterford logs and BMV printout containing Saunders' biographical information. N.T. 1/22/04, pp. 38, 52. According to Detective Fraeland, they later obtained another photo of Saunders and put it into a photo array. N.T. 1/22/04, p. 40. The detectives said they did not have "immediate access" to BMV photos and would not have used it in a photo array because it would taint it; he also did not know when he got the BMV Photo. N.T. 1/22/04, pp. 40, 54. Detective Fraeland said the BMV Photo is what first led to Saunders becoming a suspect in the home-invasion and did not kow; if any other detectives showed tha BMV Photo to witnesses. N.T. 1/22/04, p. 56.
The detectives admitted to not having all of the photo arrays that were shown to witnesses; they did not have the ones in which no one was identified. N.T. 1/22/04, pp. 62-64. Baradinelli only requested the photo arrays in which an identification was made. N.T. 1/21/04, p. 70.
Millar did not how many times she viewed photo arrays, maybe close to 10. She didn't remember if she was ever shown arrays and did not identify someone. She "met so many detectives" she didn't remember who showed photo arrays or who called to schedule them. N.T. 1/15/04, pp. 69-72.
L. Thomas testified that most of the time she was shown photo arrays, no one was identified. N.T. 1/20/04, pp. 37-38. Most of them were shown before February 20, 2002. N.T. 1/20/04, p. 39. At the first trial, L. Thomas testified that she saw Saunders at a "Chinese store" a few days after the incident, 7 or 8 days later. N.T. 2/18/03, pp. 93, 99. At Saunders' second trial, she said she saw him at a "chinese store" a couple months before February 20,
2002. N.T. 1/20/04. p. 39.
29. T. Thomas knew that she saw photos whenever her mother and sister did, but could not give a number. N.T. 1/20/04, pp. 124-125.
30. February 20, 2002: 18 months after the home-invasion robbery, a photo array containing Saunders' photo was shown to Milier, L. Thomas, and T. Thomas at one of their relative's house. N.T. 2/20/03, pp. 52-69; N.T. 1/22/04, pp. 41-42. Miller made an identification, stating she was 80% certain; L. Thomas made an identification and noted that she saw Saunders at a "chinese store"; and T. Thomas narrowed it down to 2 photos, one of which was Saunders, she could not make a positive identification. N.T. 1/15/04, pp. 76-78; N.T, 1/20/04, pp. 39-40, 104--105.
31. March 6, 2002: Saunders was arrested after Miller and L. Thomas saw him at a sneaker store in Philadelphia. N.T. 2/13/03, pp. 7981, 128-129; N.T, 1/15/04, pp. 47-48, 80-82, 85-86. Miller gave 2 different accounts of what occurred that day.
32. May 14, 2002: T. Thomas was present in courtroom during Saunders' preliminary hearing. She watched, and listened, as her mother and older sister testified and made in-court identifications of Saunders, even though she was supposed to be sequestered. N.T. 5/14/02, p. 7; N.T. 2/19/03, p. 40; N.T. 1/20/04, pp. 123-124. T. Thomas also testified that she was present in the courtroom for a scheduled praliminary hearing that was postponed. Presumably, this was sometime before May 14, 2002. She claimed she saw Saunders in the courtroom with his attorney and the district attorney, even though the hearing was rescheduled. This was a mistaken identification. N.T. 2/19/03, pp. 71-79.
33. July 12, 2002: 23 months after the home-invasion robbery, a photo array of Smith v/as shown to Miller, L. Thomas, and T. Thomas. N.T. 1/22/04, p. 7. Miller and T. Thomas made identifications. L. Thomas identified a single photo of Smith's tatoo; she was unable to identify his photo. N.T. 1/22/04, pp. 9-15.
34. September 22, 2002. Smith was arrested. N.T. 1/21/04, p. 28. He was acquittad of all charges, in May of 2004.
35. February 2003: Saunders started a jury trial in which all three eyewitnesses/victims made in-court identifications. The trial, ended with a hung jury.
36. April 2003: Saunders, who was out on bail on tha home-invasion case, was arrested on the attempted escape case.
37. January 2004: Saunders started a second trial, with the same attorney, in which the same eyewitnesses/victims made in-court identifications. This trial resulted in Saunders' conviction.
38. March 16, 2004: Over 32 months after the attempted escape, a lineup was conducted in which Prout was inciudad as a susoect. He was identified by Miller and T. Thomas. N.T. 9/20/04, pp. 35-36.
WHAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE AT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING I. An identification made 18 months after the crime is highly improbable and unreliable.
It The victims' focus on the weapons decreases the reliability of the identification evidence.
3. The victims gave verbal descriptions of the perpetrators twice once while in each other's presence - which decreases the reliability of the subsequent identifications.
4. The victims made composite sketches by picking out facial features from old mugshots; this procedure is known to decrease tha reliability of subsequent identifications.
5. Viewing photographs in a photo array (simultaneously), as the victims did, is less reliable than viewing them sequentially.
6. Several photo arrays were not preserved by the Commonwealth, thereby, precluding Saunders from being able to demonstrate that the pretrial identification process was unduly suggestive.
7. Collectively, the witnesses made at least 5 misidentifications.
8. T. Thomas made an in-court identification after a highly suggestive out-of-court identification
9. The investigating detectives and prosecutor had "tunnel vision."
10. Tha investigating detectives should not have been the ones displaying the photo arrays to the victims, because it increases the likelihood of a suggestive identification.
II. Smith was acquitted of all charges in a jury trial with the same witnesses, evidence, investigating detectives, and prosecutor, after the prosecutor argued in Saunders' trial that Smith,.was one of the perpetrators and that his identification corroborated the identification of Saunders.
12. There is no accurate description of how long the victims had to observe the perpetrators.
13. The victims' degree of certainty is not an indication of the level of reliability of the pretrial identifications.
14. The victims' descriptions of the perpetrators were general and vague, identifying no specific details; the first description obtained by police is a composite of all the victims with no indication of who gave what information; the second description was likely influenced by the first.
15. The victims' level of stress and fear during the ordeal would have had a negative effect on their degree of attention.
16. The fact that there were alleged to be four perpetrators, and each victim saw at least three of them, effects the degree of attention any victim paid to any one perpetrator.
17. The identification of Brown after 6 months, Saunders after 18 months, Smith after 23 months, and Prout after 32 months is highly improbable without a suggestive identification procedure.
18. Trial counsel's failure to call all the available witnesses, address all of the relevant facts, and present all of the available evidence in a motion to suppress the identification evidence deprived Saunders of a fair trial.
19. The deficiencies in trial counsel's cross-examination of the victim's and lead detective contributed to Saunders's conviction.
20. Trial counsel's failure to call three witnesses, including an alibi v/itness, at the second trial contributed to his conviction.
21. The jurors' verdict of guilt in Saunders' second trial based on the identification evidence was not a rational, reasonable decision - it was based on a common misperception about the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness-identification evidence.
References; 1. Leah M. Zerbe, Mistaken Ids: Experts: Reforms Needed to End Faulty Identifications, Philadelphia Daily News, Thurs., July 28, 2005
2. Eyewitness Evidence: A Trainer's Manual for Law Enforcement. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Sept. 2003)
3. Dunning, D. & L.B. Stern. Distinguishing Accurate from Inaccurate Identifications via Inquiries About Decision Processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1994, Vol. 67, 818-835
4. Lindsay, R.C.L. & G.L. Wells. Improving Eyewitness Identifications From Lineups: Simultaneous Versus Sequential Lineup Presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology 1985, Vol. 70, 556-564
5. S.F. Sporer. Eyewitness Identification Accuracy, Confidence> and Decision Times in Simultaneous and Sequential Lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology 1993, Vol. 78, 22-33
6. G.L. Wells. What Do We Know About Eyewitness Identification? American Psychologists 1993, Vol. 48, 553-571 7. G.L. Wells, S M. Rydell, & E.P. Seelau. The Selection of Distractors for Eyewitness Lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology 1993, Vol. 78, 835-844 , ,
8. Dodson, C.S., M.K. Johnson, & J.W. Schooler- The Verbal Overshadowing Effect: Why Descriptions Impair Face Recognition. Memory and Cognition 1997, Vol- 25, 129-139
9. Levine & Tanp, The Psychology of Criminal Identification: The Gap From Wade to Kirby, 121 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1079 (1972-73)
10. 0'Conner, "That's the Man": A Sobering Study of Eyewitness Identification and the Polygraph, 49 St. John's L.Rev. 1 (1974)
11. Handberg, Expert Testimony on Eyewitness Identification: A New Pair of Glasses for the Jury, 32 Am.Crim.L.Rev. 1013 (1995)
12. Sobel, Assailing the Impermissible Suggestion: Evolving Limitations on the Abuse of Pre-trial Criminal Identification Methods, 38 Brook.L.Rev. 261 (1971)
13. Faigman, Saks, Sanders, & Cheng, Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, Vol. 5, Chap. 16: Eyewitness Identifications (2007-2008 ed .)
14. Philadelphia Police Department Directive # 33: Police and Suspect Photographs
15. Philadelphia Police Department Directive # 135: Rules of Discovery
16. Dressier & Michaels, Understanding Criminal Procedure, Vol. I, Chap. 26: Eyewitness Identification Procedures (Matthew Bender, 5th ed., 2010)
17. Cipes, Bernstein, & Hall, Criminal Defense Techniques, Vol. I, Chap. 2: Identification Evidence: Constitutional and Evidentiary Principles & Chap. 25A: Examination of Eyewitnesses (Matthew Bender, rev. ed. 2012)
18. Report of the Advisory Committee on Wrongful Convictions, Joint State Government Commission, General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (September 2011)
19. Elizabeth F, Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony (Harvard Univ. Press 1979)
20. Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification, National Academy of Sciences (2014) 21. Report of the Special Master, State v. Henderson, No. A-8-08, Supreme Court of Nev7 Jersey (June 18, 2010) 22. ' No class of testimony is more uncertain and less to be relied upon than that as to identity and, where great doubt is cast upon it by the witnesses themselves, there is a double reason for submitting it with great caution.... There are few more difficult subjects with which the administration of justice has to deal. The carelessness or superficiality of observers, the variety of powers of graphic description and the different force with which the peculiarity of form or color or expression strikes different persons, make recognition or identification one of the least reliable facts testified to by actual witnesses who have seen the parties in questions." Commonwealth v. House, 223 Pa. 487, 72 A. 804, 806 (Pa. 1909)
23. "The vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification . . . What is the worth of identilfication testimony even when uncontradicted? The identification of strangers is proverbially untrustworthy. The hazards of such testimony are established by a formidable number of instances in the records of English and American trials.... The impediments to an objective observation are increased when the victim is the witness. Lineups are prevalent in rape and robbery prosecutions and present a particular hazard that a victim's understandable outrage may excite vengeful or spiteful motives." United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1933-1934 (1967)
24. "Over the past three decades, more than two thousand studies related to eyewitness identification have been published. One state supreme court recently appointed a special master to conduct an exhaustive survey of the current state of the scientific evidence and concluded that "[t]he research ... is not only extensive," but "it represents the 'gold standard in terras of the applicability of social science research to law.'" State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 283, 27 A.3d 872, 916 (2011). Experimental methods and findings have been tested and retested, subjected to scientific scrutiny through peer reviewed journals, evaluated through the lens of meta-analyses, and replicated at times in real-world setttings ... The empirical evidence
demonstrates that eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in this country." Perry v. New Hampshire. 565 U.S. , 132"S.Ct. 716, 738 (2012) (Sotomayor J., dissenting) (citations omitted) "Positive identification testimony is the most dangerous evidence known to law." United States v. Greene, 704 F.3d 298, 306 (4th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted)
"Psychological research has established that the witness's faith is equally strong whether or not the identification is correct,-.. An important body of psychological research undermines the lay intuition that confident memories of salient experiences ... are accurate and do not fade with time unless a peson's memory has some pathological impariment...• The basic problem about testimony from memory is that most of our recollections are not verifiable. The. only v/arrant for them is our certitude, and certitude is not a reliable test of certainty.... [T]he mere fact that we remember something with great confidence is not a powerful warrant for thinking it true.... Jurors, however, tend to think that witnesses memories are reliable (because jurors are confident of their own) , and this gap between the actual error rate and tha jurors' heavy reliance on eyewitness testimony sets the stage for erroneous convictions when .. - everything depends on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony by people who do not know the accusedNewsome v. McCabe, 319 F.3d 30i, 305 (7th Cir. 2003)