Flawed eyewitness testimony: Thomas Sophonow; British Columbia; Criminal lawyer Sherry Baxter explores the Sophonow' case as she sets out six reasons why flawed eyewitness testimony may convict the innocent in 'The Georgia Straight.' ..." This example highlights the malleability of human recollection: people not only begin to forget information but they are also susceptible to forming false memories based on new information learned since a particular event has occurred. Further complicating the issue was the fact that pictures used in the photo lineup included a picture of Sophonow that stood out dramatically from photographs of other men, making it “startlingly unfair”. Further still, witnesses had been unable to identify Sophonow in a live lineup, noting that he only looked more similar to the perpetrator than the other men."

COMMENTARY: "Six reasons  why flawed eyewitness testimony may convict the innocent," by Sherry Baxter, published by the Georgia Strait on April 29, 2016. (Sherry Baxter practises criminal and civil law on Vancouver Island, as well as providing  legal research and litigation services);

GIST: "Eyewitness evidence may be crucial to convicting criminals. However, according to past and recent studies, misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. In cases where people were exonerated through DNA evidence, 70 percent were wrongful convictions based on misidentification. Information regarding these studies may be found on the Innocence Project’s website, an organization in the United States aimed at freeing the wrongfully convicted and reforming the criminal-justice system. Canada has its own organization, The Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted, with a mandate similar to that of the Innocence Project. Perhaps the most well-known wrongful conviction in Canada is that of Thomas Sophonow, who was wrongfully convicted of murdering 16-year-old Barbara Stoppel. Sophonow had an alibi and was not officially exonerated until 2000. Sophonow spent almost four years in jail. An Inquiry was held, with a report released on November 5, 2001. In Sophonow’s case, a witness, Mr. Doerksen, had run after the murderer in an attempt to confront him. It was dark, and the lighting conditions were very poor. Doerksen was asked to view a photo lineup, containing pictures of men that fit the description, including Sophonow. However, Doerksen did not identify anyone as the culprit. Unfortunately, subsequent to that, he saw Sophonow in a public building after he had read a newspaper article with Sophonow’s picture. Unwittingly, and subconsciously, Doerksen began to believe that Sophonow was actually the man he had chased. This example highlights the malleability of human recollection: people not only begin to forget information but they are also susceptible to forming false memories based on new information learned since a particular event has occurred. Further complicating the issue was the fact that pictures used in the photo lineup included a picture of Sophonow that stood out dramatically from photographs of other men, making it “startlingly unfair”. Further still, witnesses had been unable to identify Sophonow in a live lineup, noting that he only looked more similar to the perpetrator than the other men. The inquiry report contained numerous recommendations to address concerns with eyewitness identification and the use of photo lineups. Guidelines similar to the Sophonow recommendations have been adopted as law in 14 states. This is not the case in Canada, where failure to follow the recommendations may not affect the judge’s view of trial fairness. This is most unfortunate, given the great risk of wrongful convictions. Here are six reasons eyewitness evidence may convict the innocent, and how those risks can be minimized."...(Read on for the aforesaid six reasons - as part of the entire commentary - at the link below);

http://www.straight.com/news/689666/reasonable-doubt-six-reasons-eyewitness-testimony-may-convict-innocent

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com;

Harold Levy;

Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;