The Great Engine that Couldn't: Science, Mistaken Identifications, and the Limits of Cross-Examination

62 Pages Posted: 5 Mar 2008

See all articles by Jules Epstein

Jules Epstein

Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law

Date Written: September 24, 2007

Abstract

Wigmore's assertion that cross-examination is the greatest engine for the search for the truth comes with a caveat: it works best for the untruthful witness, or for eliciting facts known to the witness but not acknowledged on direct examination. In the typical eyewitness-based prosecution, neither condition obtains. The eyewitness is not untruthful but may be mistaken; and eyewitnesses do not know the factors [weapons focus, the deleterious effect of stress on eyewitness accuracy, the problem of "own-race bias" in cross-racial crimes] that may have caused the mistake.

This article traces cross-examination to its origins and demonstrates that its utility (as originally intended and as developed over centuries) is limited in eyewitness cases. The article concludes that other tools - better jury instructions, and the use of expert witnesses - are essential to ensure a complete search for truth in identification cases.

Keywords: cross-examination, eyewitness, mistaken identification, witness, evidence

JEL Classification: K14, K4

Suggested Citation

Epstein, Jules, The Great Engine that Couldn't: Science, Mistaken Identifications, and the Limits of Cross-Examination (September 24, 2007). Stetson Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2007, Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-23, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1100090

Jules Epstein (Contact Author)

Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law ( email )

1719 N. Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
740
Abstract Views
3,661
Rank
63,461
PlumX Metrics