That’s exactly why the cops don’t want to record the percentage: it only serves to weaken the case. That and the fact that, in a trial, any doubt would be “reasonable”.
Keep in mind that prosecutors and to some extent cops are judged based on convictions, not “the truth,” which can’t be measured. I’d like to think that most of them still do the right thing, but there is a system in place that encourages them to get convictions.
Was the picture of the defendant the same one you saw the first time through? If so, I’d put far more weight on your original opinion than on the latter one, which is subject to suggestion. It’s VERY hard to overcome the power of suggestion, and all but impossible to detect when it’s actually at play. If you changed your mind, that’s evidence of suggestion, unless there were significant other factors that would explain it. As in, you saw the guy again and he punched you again …
Update 2: After several failed attempts to schedule a meeting with the DA’s before the suspect’s Grand Jury indictment, he called the other night to prepare me for the next morning’s court hearing. He told me that there would be no defense attorney present since it was just an indictment; I would discuss the incident, my recollection of the night, and the lineup procedure. I shared my story with him about the lineup; he was surprised, and asked me to meet the next morning.
After an hour in the waiting room, I got called in to meet with the DA and a supervisor. The supervisor was quite aggressive at first–he had worked with Detective Franklin repeatedly in the past, and apparently he assumed I was trying to get out of testifying (this is common? People make excuses to avoid giving testimony for crimes when they’re a victim? What kind of world do we live in?)
However, I stayed calm, talked about the difficulties I’d had and the stress this incident has caused me, explained that I’d talked to some people for advice and explained why I had only brought it up with the DA the day before the incident. In the end, I think I persuaded both DA’s I was both honest and reliable (even if they didn’t fully accept my version of events–and they shouldn’t, my recollection probably isn’t perfect).
The indictment was postponed; the DAs are going to look for corroboration that puts the suspects on the scene of the crime (train passes, cell-phone calls). They also indicated there will probably be an internal police investigation–and they when they had spoken to the detective earlier in the day, there was a lot of cursing involved.
I’m pretty upset about this whole thing–basically, this is exactly the outcome I didn’t want, potentially making enemies in the police force while simultaneously potentially letting a violent thug back out on the street. Not sure what to do, but I think it’s out of my hands now. I’ll just keep on being honest and hoping, since I think that’s about all I’ve got.
This thread dates the moment you had doubts about the line up. Your OP states “a few nights ago” so it isn’t like you were sitting on this facet for months. The date of this thread presumably coincides with the date of the incident clearly.
I’m not sure if you want to show this thread to the prosecutor, but if your timing or integrity were t come into question, you could.
I’m also baffled that we don’t require double blind lineups. Too much trouble I suppose.
Playing devil’s advocate here. Franklin gave you “important advice” on how to do the photo ID, before starting in with the 8 photos he had. He showed you 4 photos, repeated his advice, then showed you 4 more.
It is entirely reasonable to believe that this is his standard procedure for doing photo IDs, and it was merely coincidence that your guy was in position #5, something that will happen 1 of 8 times.
If Franklin were to tell you again, that he possessed no knowledge of the case, the police had processes in place to ensure that the questioning officer was not knowledgeable, and that it was his standard schpiel to repeat his advice half way through the process, would you feel more confident about your ID?
Had Detective “Franklin” been following his normal protocol, i.e., show four pictures, offer advice, show four more pictures… he wouldn’t have made the statement, “I wish I could have been there to help with the first line-up.”
I went thru something similar when I was robbed at gunpoint almost 20 years ago. The detective showed me several photos and suggested a couple of people. I couldn’t be sure, and when I thought about it, I realized I’d have to testify. During the 2nd visit, and more photos, I simply reiterated I couldn’t be sure. It was weird.
Does that really matter, though? Let’s suppose this is his standard procedure, and he has no ill intent. If it could lead some witnesses to falsely identify suspect #4, then it is a bad procedure and needs to be changed. Lineups are absolutely notorious for being involved in falsely convicting innocent people. Every police department should be following carefully-developed standards for doing them to avoid exactly this kind of situation, and fixing that is worth freeing one petty criminal (if that even happens).
Without my lineup ID, the DA decided to resume the case as a Juvenile case (even though the perpetrator turn 18 in late January, meaning any punishment would be extremely short-lived). The DA would not use my lineup ID. However, the reason they gave was one I forgot to mention (I was concussed! cut me some slack!): on the night of the assault, a uniformed officer showed me a mugshot on his cellphone of the perpetrator (and only the perpetrator). This invalidated the line-up from the very beginning, and spared me and the DA the difficulty of dealing with putting the detectives on the stand.
I was called into court a few days back for a suppression hearing. The perpetrator’s defense attorney wanted to bar me from identifying his client at all; the DA claimed that even with the bad lineup, I could still reliably point the thug out in open court.
But before the hearing, they made a deal. Fortunately (I guess?) the kid was on a suspended sentence for a previous offense. The charges for my assault would get dropped, in exchange for the defense attorney not contesting a violation of the terms of the sentence suspension. This means that until his 18th birthday, my assailant will be on a GPS tracker, have a curfew, and attend mandatory therapy.
Six weeks of that doesn’t seem like a very harsh consequence. But according to the DA, even if convicted of my assault, the sentence would probably be more or less identical. And, the judge added a few dozen hours of community service to the previous sentence, unsolicited by the DA.
I suppose all things considered, I could envision worse outcomes. But Detective Franklin seems to have gotten off without consequence, and 6 weeks of picking up trash from the park seems like a light punishment for a ransom targeted assault. I’ve had several panic attacks trying to walk home from the bus stop after dark.
Thanks for the update, that’s really interesting. I’m glad that they were going to suppress the evidence. At least in this case, the system worked: the judge suppressed evidence (or was going to) that was not obtained properly. Unfortunately not all judges are that willing to stand up to the cops, but I think most do a pretty good job.