Familiarity with suspect, quality of photos, and crime surveillance videos affect accuracy of non-eyewitness identification

In January 2017, Jason Reddick was shot and killed at a gas station in Hartford, Connecticut. Antron Gore was charged with and convicted of Reddick’s murder and the criminal possession of a firearm. During the investigation, a car that looked like the car driven by the shooter was located at the home of Gore’s friend Caron Canty.

Canty—who described Gore as a “close friend,” had known Gore much of his life and saw Gore most days—told police the car belonged to Gore and identified Gore as the person depicted in a photo taken from surveillance video of the crime, giving what’s known as a non-eyewitness identification. By the time of the trial, Canty denied making the identification, but the lead detective testified that Canty had identified Gore in the photo.

Gore appealed his conviction, arguing that Canty’s identification was inadmissible because it was a lay opinion. The Connecticut Supreme Court (State v. Gore, 2022) rejected that argument, finding that such non-eyewitness identifications are admissible if they are “rationally based on the perception of the witness and [are] helpful to a clear understanding of the testimony of the witness or the determination of a fact in issue.”

The court noted that non-eyewitness testimony is much like eyewitness testimony because both are based on the witness’s recognition of the defendant. One difference is that a non-eyewitness identification is based on familiarity with the defendant rather than on memory of an event (eyewitness testimony). Another difference is that the jurors can see the defendant and the photo or video in the courtroom.

The court held that a non-eyewitness identification would be admissible if the “totality of the circumstances” suggests that “the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the photograph [or video] than is the jury.”

Relevant factors include the witness’s familiarity with the defendant’s appearance, any changes in appearance since the image was taken, and the image quality. Other courts considering this issue have allowed non-eyewitness testimony if the witness has at least a minimal degree of familiarity with the defendant. Recognizing the need to protect against “good faith mistaken identifications,” the court in Gore required more than a minimal degree of familiarity with the defendant for the identification to be considered sufficiently reliable. Because Canty had a “long-standing and intimate association” with Gore, the court found that the identification was admissible.

In explaining its decision, the court referenced psychological science on eyewitnesses and emerging research on non-eyewitnesses. Two findings reflected in the court’s decision in Gore are that increased familiarity with the subject and the image quality are both related to increased accuracy in non­-eyewitness recognition (Pezdek, K., & Lerer, T., Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 32, No. 6, 2023opens in new window).

Research on variables that can influence the accuracy of non-eyewitness identifications can advance how law enforcement and courts approach this kind of identification. Accuracy can also be affected by whether the witness is primed to expect a familiar face or is exposed to information other than the image. Accuracy also tends to be lower when the non-eyewitness is asked to identify a person of a different race.

Mistaken identification plays a role in nearly 70% of DNA exonerations. As the use of cell phone, doorbell, body-worn, and surveillance cameras proliferates, the role of non-eyewitness identifications will increase. Ideally, law enforcement ought to use procedures that minimize the likelihood of mistaken non-eyewitness identifications. Courts should be sensitive to factors that can influence the reliability of non-eyewitness identifications. And psychologists must continue to develop research that explores the nuances of non-eyewitness identifications and how they are similar yet distinct from eyewitness identifications.