Eyewitness Identification

* A jury recently decided against Los Angeles County and awarded $4.4 million to Gordon Robert Hall, who in 1978, at age 16, was wrongfully convicted of murder on the basis of eyewitness identification. Bill Pellman, senior assistant counsel for the county, who tried the case, is quoted as saying, “If you can’t rely upon eyewitnesses, who can you rely upon?” (“Man Wrongfully Convicted Wins $4.4 Million in Suit,” June 26).

I was the identification expert who testified in this case, and in more than 300 other eyewitness cases over the last 20 years. Uncritical reliance on eyewitnesses can (and has) lead to miscarriages of justice. Settlements involving wrongful convictions of other cases that have come to light, based primarily on eyewitness identifications, have cost taxpayers large amounts.

Although the overall number of those convicted, or even executed, on the basis of such erroneous identifications may not be large, each case represents a tragedy, and a failure of our criminal justice system.

The verdict in the Hall case reflected the high degree of suggestibility used by law enforcement, which victimized Hall, let the actual murderer remain free, penalized the identifying witnesses, and ultimately the community and taxpayers as well.

We cannot completely rely on identifications obtained from eyewitnesses under the best of circumstances. Criminal justice procedures that employ high standards of fairness without bias and suggestibility are absolutely necessary in order to place any confidence in eyewitness identifications used for arrest and conviction.

ROBERT Wm. SHOMER

Encino