Abstract
As Professor Stein correctly notes, mistaken identifications have played a significant role in producing a number of wrongful convictions.1 The DNA exoneration cases have provided some vivid recent examples.2 These cases have called public attention to the problem and have led to proposals for systematic improvements, such as changes in lineup procedures. Professor Stein properly adds a caveat, that the pool from which the DNA exoneration cases are drawn are likely to have a higher proportion of false identification cases than criminal cases generally. I would like to expand briefly on that caution against too much reliance on the DNA exoneration cases. The scientific advance represented by DNA testing was an advance in identifying suspects. Many of the cases of DNA exoneration, for example, have been sexual assault cases in which the victim was assaulted by a stranger.3
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
