Connecticut Supreme Court Mandates That Juries Generally Be Informed of Risks Inherent in Eyewitness Identification Procedures When Eyewitness Has Not Been Warned That Perpetrator May Not Be Present

State v. Ledbetter, 881 A.2d 290 (Conn. 2005)

A unanimous Connecticut Supreme Court has crafted a jury instruction that generally must be given in trials when an eyewitness identification is entered into evidence.  The court noted that psychological studies document that a witness is more likely to misidentify an innocent individual as the perpetrator of a crime during an identification procedure (e.g., during a photo array or lineup) where the witness is not warned that the perpetrator might not be present.  The court added the research also shows that warning the witness that the perpetrator might not be present does not significantly decrease the percentage of correct identifications...

Found in DMHL Volume 25 Issue 1