Washington v. Baker

Brief Filed: 9/26 
Court: Supreme Court of Washington
Year of Decision: Pending

Read full-text amicus brief (PDF, 306KB)opens in new window

Whether first-time in-court eyewitness identifications, particularly those following initial non-identifications, are sufficiently reliable to satisfy due-process principles.

Eyewitness Identification Research

Mr. Baker was convicted of murder and assault arising from two shootings. Shortly after the shootings, police separately showed two eyewitnesses a six-photograph array containing the petitioner’s photograph. One witness, who had spent significant time with the shooter, stated that the perpetrator was “definitely” absent from the array. The other witness was unsure whether the perpetrator was pictured. Nearly a year later, both witnesses identified the petitioner for the first time during trial. APA filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioner’s position that the identifications raised serious reliability and due-process concerns.

APA argues psychological research shows that first-time in-court identifications are particularly unreliable when witnesses previously viewed the suspect, initially failed to identify the suspect, and later identified the suspect after a substantial delay. Memory is reconstructive and can be contaminated by prior exposure, source confusion, and the passage of time. Initial non-identifications therefore provide meaningful evidence of innocence and are generally more reliable than later identifications.

Further, the courtroom itself is highly suggestive because the defendant is the only apparent suspect and witnesses may feel pressure to make an identification. Although these identifications are unreliable, they can strongly influence juries and increase the risk of wrongful conviction.

Pending