When DNA evidence became mainstream, it changed the process of criminal investigation and prosecution in many significant ways. It also called to attention the shortfalls of traditional methods of gathering evidence, such as eyewitness identification. In fact, recent research found that nearly 200 of the first 250 people to be exonerated by DNA evidence had been wrongfully convicted of the crimes against them as a result of incorrect eyewitness testimony.

Because of the all-too-common inaccuracies that are inherent in eyewitness identifications, courts' reliance on such witnesses has come under fire in King County and across the state and country. But in a recent case argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices ruled that the current protections around eyewitness accuracy were sufficient.

Specifically, the majority found that the United States Constitution's guarantee of due process does not require that courts undertake any kind of judicial inquiry into an eyewitness' reliability. The only exception to this would be if there was some evidence that the police investigating the case had been improperly suggestive or had otherwise acted inappropriately.

The case argued before the court was brought by a man who had been charged with theft for allegedly breaking into a car in front of an apartment building. During his trial, the jury heard testimony from a woman that lived on the fourth floor of the building who had previously told police that she saw a "tall black man," with no additional details, break in to the car. But during the police investigation, the woman was unable to pick the defendant out of a photo lineup.

Regardless, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to up to 10 years in jail. He appealed, claiming that the witness' testimony was improper, but the courts upheld his conviction, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Source: Reuters, "Supreme Court rejects special review of eyewitness testimony," James Vicini, Jan. 11, 2012