Eyewitnesses can sound convincing. A person points to the defendant, swears they remember the face, and the room goes quiet. Jurors lean forward. Prosecutors know this and often build cases around a narrative anchored by a confident witness. Seasoned defense lawyers know something else just as important: confidence is not the same as accuracy. The science of memory, the realities of stress, and the way police procedures influence recall all combine to make eyewitness testimony much less reliable than most people think. A competent criminal attorney treats an eyewitness like any other piece of evidence, probing where it came from, how it was collected, and whether it holds up under scrutiny.
I have cross-examined witnesses who sounded absolutely certain and later admitted they were not. I have seen identifications fall apart when the lineup photos were shown to the jury. I have heard a witness retract the word “green” and replace it with “gray” after being shown a crime scene photo. Small cracks become large ones when you understand how memory works and how police practices, even well intentioned ones, can steer a person toward a suspect.
What science and experience say about memory
Human memory does not work like a video camera. It operates more like a story the brain stitches together from fragments. First, a person perceives something under stress: a gun, a face, a shout, a quick movement. Then the brain encodes what it can. Later, when police question the witness, they retrieve and reconstruct the memory. Each step has failure points. Darkness, distance, brief exposure, and high stress reduce the quality of the original input. Later, suggestive questions, repeated viewings of a photo, or media exposure blend new information into the memory. By the time the witness testifies, they are often recalling the last version of the story they told, not the original moment.
Consider a street robbery that lasts eight seconds. The witness is focused on the weapon, not the face. The brain prioritizes threat, so “weapon focus” dilutes facial detail. If the suspect is of a different race than the witness, cross-racial identification becomes an additional hurdle. Add poor lighting and a hat brim, and accuracy declines further. These are not excuses, they are documented phenomena. Good defense work translates those facts into the specifics of the case at hand.
The first move: freeze the record
When a case walks in, the immediate task is preservation. A criminal defense attorney asks for everything tied to the identification: body-worn camera footage, dispatch logs, lineup photos, showup documentation, 911 audio, surveillance video, field notes, and any recordings of interviews. The sooner you request these items, the less likely key material is “lost” under the churn of an active investigation.
I have found crucial details in the margins. A detective’s notebook had a doodle of a baseball cap. The final report omitted the cap entirely. That small discrepancy mattered because the defendant had a shaved head when arrested. If the person who did the crime wore a hat and the witness never actually saw hair, later courtroom certainty about the defendant’s haircut becomes suspect. The goal at this stage is not to argue, but to gather. Facts tighten later arguments.
Lineups, showups, and photo arrays under the microscope
Identification procedures often determine whether a case is strong or fragile. Every method has pitfalls.
Showups, where police bring a detained person to the witness shortly after the incident, are highly suggestive. The witness knows someone is being presented as a suspect. Even with proper instructions, the human tendency to please authority and the adrenaline of the moment push a person toward “that’s him.” Courts allow showups in exigent circumstances, like when the police need to confirm quickly to release an innocent person or keep searching. Defense counsel pressures the state to justify the urgency and the lack of alternatives. If the showup happens an hour later a mile away, that “urgency” begins to look more like convenience.
Photo arrays and live lineups require strict controls. A double-blind procedure, where the administrator does not know the suspect, reduces suggestion. Fillers must match the suspect’s description, not the suspect’s unique features. If the witness described a tall man with stubble and a black hoodie, and the photo array has one man in a black hoodie with stubble and the rest clean shaven in collared shirts, you have a tainted array. An experienced criminal attorney will ask for the full array, not just the single suspect photo. I have had cases where an array placed the defendant in the center position with brighter lighting than the fillers. Jurors understand bias when they see it.
Non-blind administration, repeated arrays showing the same suspect, and confirming feedback after a tentative identification all inflate a witness’s confidence without improving accuracy. A single “good job” or “you picked the same person as the other witness” can double apparent certainty by trial. That is why seasoned defense lawyers insist on pretrial hearings to test identification reliability. In many jurisdictions, this is called a suppression or Wade hearing, and it can make or break a case.
Cross-examination that lands with jurors
Cross-examination on eyewitness reliability is about sequencing, not grandstanding. You need jurors to follow the timeline from perception to identification, then to the courtroom. A clean sequence makes the gaps obvious.
Start with the conditions at the scene: time of day, distance, angle, duration, lighting, and any obstructions. If the witness testified to seeing the defendant’s face for “a few seconds,” drill into whether those seconds were continuous or broken up by movement. Ask about stressors: a weapon, shouting, a crowd. Clarify if the witness was on a phone, wearing glasses, or looking through a windshield. Each answer narrows the realistic bandwidth of what the witness could have perceived.
Then move to the first description the witness gave. The first description, usually in a 911 call or to the first officer, is gold. It is unvarnished and closest to the event. If the first description did not include a beard, and the defendant had a prominent beard at arrest, that discrepancy matters. Jurors do not need a psychology lecture. They need to see the mismatch.
Only after laying that foundation should you address the identification procedure. Was the lineup double blind? What instructions were given? How many people were in the lineup? Did the administrator say the suspect may or may not be present? Did the witness hear that another witness had made an identification? Did the police show the same photo more than once? Were there videos, and were they played to the witness before the lineup? Each answer can point to subtle nudges.
Finally, tackle confidence, but do it with timestamps. Ask how confident the witness was at the time of the first lineup and what words they used. “I think so” reads very differently than “That is him.” If confidence grew over time, ask what new information the witness received. Did they see news coverage or a social media post with the defendant’s mugshot? Jurors understand that repeated exposure breeds familiarity, not necessarily accuracy.
Expert testimony: when to bring in the scientist
Courts increasingly allow experts in eyewitness identification to explain memory science without offering an opinion on guilt. The best experts translate research into plain language and connect it to the facts without overstating. In a robbery case where the witness had a few seconds under poor lighting and cross-racial conditions, an expert can explain why those conditions produce higher error rates. The expert does not replace cross-examination. They prime jurors to interpret what they heard.
A smart criminal attorney chooses experts carefully. Some jurors tune out jargon. Others resent a lecture. The most persuasive experts use examples. They might ask the jury to visualize a stop sign for two seconds at dusk, then to recall details about the car next to it. They do not guess about what this particular witness saw, they show why the conditions make precision unlikely. If the case involves a DUI or DWI alongside an identification issue, an expert can also explain how intoxication reduces encoding of peripheral details. In a bar fight where a witness had four drinks, that matters.
Motions that put reliability front and center
Pretrial motions set the legal frame for what the jury hears. A suppression motion challenges the admissibility of an identification if police procedures were unduly suggestive. If the court agrees that the process was flawed and unreliable, the identification may be excluded. Even if the court denies the motion, the hearing testimony can generate cross-examination material. At a minimum, it forces the state to commit to a clear narrative.
In some jurisdictions, a defense lawyer may request an instruction on eyewitness reliability, guiding jurors to consider factors like lighting, duration, stress, and confidence at the time of the initial identification. Carefully crafted instructions help jurors avoid the trap of equating courtroom confidence with original accuracy.
Beyond suppression, a defense attorney might move to exclude unduly prejudicial surveillance stills that exaggerate the defendant’s resemblance to the perpetrator, or to compel disclosure of police training materials on lineups. If the case involves overlapping charges, such as an Assault and Battery prosecution where the only link is a shaky identification, severance may be appropriate to prevent spillover prejudice. In a burglary or robbery case, where the state’s physical evidence is thin, these motions can narrow the battlefield to what is sound.
Real-world examples and lessons
A client was charged with robbery near a subway entrance. Two witnesses, strangers to each other, identified him in separate photo arrays. The case looked strong. We obtained the arrays and saw the same issue in both: our client was the only person in the array wearing a bright red jacket, a detail one witness had mentioned. The fillers wore muted tones. We filed a motion for a hearing. During testimony, the detective admitted he chose fillers from a database without filtering for clothing color. The judge allowed the identifications to be heard but permitted cross-examination on array composition and granted an instruction on suggestiveness. The jury acquitted after thirty minutes. Jurors later said the red jacket looked like a pointer.
In a domestic incident charged as Aggravated Harassment and trespass, the complaining witness identified my client months later after seeing a social media photo. The police never conducted a lineup. On cross, the witness admitted they had scrolled through dozens of photos that friends shared before deciding the defendant was the person at the door that night. The apartment hallway was dim, the encounter lasted seconds, and the witness had been upset. The jury convicted on a lesser harassment violation but rejected the misdemeanor and trespass counts. Memory is pliable, especially when mixed with emotion and time.
I have had different dynamics in cases involving weapon possession or gun possession. There, identification might come from a quick glimpse of someone running. If the government has no fingerprints or DNA on the firearm, they lean hard on the witness who “saw the defendant tuck something.” The right response is to anchor to specifics: distance, angle, obstacles, eyesight, lighting, and time gap between event and first statement. A calm, technical cross often beats a theatrical one.
When identifications intersect with other charges
Eyewitness issues rarely stand alone. In a Drug Crimes or drug possession case based on a hand-to-hand observation from fifty feet away, I press the officer on their vantage point, duration of observation, and the number of transactions they monitored simultaneously. If lighting is poor and street activity is heavy, the risk of misattribution rises. In Theft Crimes, grand larceny, petit larceny, or burglary cases hinging on a neighbor’s quick look at a person in a hoodie, the cross-racial factor and clothing similarity among local residents can be decisive.
In Assault and Battery or Domestic Violence matters, bias can influence recall. Family dynamics and prior disputes may color identification. A defense lawyer has to navigate those waters carefully, probing for motive without appearing to smear a victim. In Sex Crimes cases, identity can turn on stranger identification after a brief encounter. Here, a sex crimes attorney often pairs eyewitness scrutiny with DNA, phone location, or alibi evidence to build a cohesive story.
White Collar Crimes and embezzlement cases rely less on eyewitnesses, but when they do appear, it is often about who handled documents or made a key meeting. Memory still degrades and is influenced by professional hierarchies. A Fraud Crimes prosecution may feature a confident bookkeeper who places a defendant at a desk on a particular day. Cross-examination moves through calendar records, access logs, and corroborating emails. Eyewitness fallibility is not confined to street crimes.
Homicide cases deserve special mention. The pressure to solve a killing can generate tunnel vision. When a homicide attorney inherits an investigation where the first narrative settled quickly around a suspect, they scrutinize every identification. Showups proliferate after homicides because urgency is high. That is where a suppression motion has real teeth. If the identification is the spine of the case, removing it changes posture entirely.
The role of corroboration and the limits of alibi
Jurors like corroboration. If an eyewitness is the only link to the defendant, a criminal defense attorney finds or highlights the absence of physical evidence. No fingerprints on the stolen phone. No DNA on the mask. No surveillance showing the route. No text messages matching the timeline. Defense does not need to prove a negative, it needs to show reasonable doubt by mapping what should be there if the eyewitness is right and what is missing.
Alibi evidence can help, but it cuts both ways. Jurors sometimes hold alibi witnesses to unrealistic standards. A mother or partner is dismissed as biased. Neutral alibi is better: a transit card swipe, a time-stamped delivery receipt, a location ping that fits the alibi. Alibi plus eyewitness weakness becomes compelling. Alibi alone can feel thin. The judgment call is whether to lean into alibi or keep the case framed around the state’s burden and the unreliability of the identification. In some traffic-related prosecutions, like a hit-and-run paired with a traffic ticket, the defense may show that the car model and color were common in the area and that the witness described features that do not match the defendant’s vehicle trim, rather than staking everything on a shaky alibi.
How judges and juries weigh confidence and honesty
Many witnesses are honest. They want to help and believe they are right. The danger lies in equating honesty with accuracy. During trial, a judge’s instruction can help jurors separate the two. A gentle, respectful cross that validates the witness’s effort while revealing limits often plays better than an attack. “You were scared,” not “You are lying.” Jurors resist the idea that a witness is fabricating from whole cloth. They are more open to the reality that the person could be sincerely mistaken.
If a witness’s confidence grows between the first identification and trial, highlight the growth and connect it to post-event information. Did the witness sit through a preliminary hearing and see the defendant in handcuffs? Did they meet with prosecutors multiple times? Did they view photographs labeled “suspect”? These environmental factors inflate confidence. Keep the jury focused on the first moment of identification, the one closest to the event.
Practical steps defense lawyers take behind the scenes
Here is what a careful defense team does in the first weeks after an identification surfaces:
- Demand and review all identification records: audio, video, arrays, instructions, and notes. Create a detailed timeline from event to first ID to trial. Visit the scene at the same time of day and conditions. Measure distances with a rangefinder, photograph sight lines, and document lighting sources and obstructions. Compare the first description to your client’s actual features at arrest. Note mismatches and changes over time. Assess the need for an eyewitness expert and file motions for hearings and tailored jury instructions on identification reliability. Identify corroboration gaps in the prosecution’s case and pursue neutral alibi or technological records that test the timeline.
Each step builds leverage. Even when the identification cannot be excluded, thorough preparation often yields cross-examination that narrows what the witness can reasonably claim.
Special considerations: traffic stops, DUIs, and quick encounters
Not all identifications involve serious felonies. In DUI or DWI cases, an officer’s identification of the driver matters, especially if the stop followed a crash and the driver was outside the vehicle when police arrived. Darkness, chaos, and multiple bystanders complicate that identification. A dui attorney or dwi attorney will press on the same memory issues while also challenging field sobriety cues and chemical test reliability.
For a traffic ticket attorney or Traffic Violations attorney handling a high-speed pass-by, the officer’s vantage point and the duration of observation become central. Was the radar operator the same person who stopped the car? Did the officer have an uninterrupted view long enough to match plate to driver? In busy corridors, misidentification can happen quickly, and courts will listen if you present a clear, fact-based challenge.
Ethics and the prosecutor’s blind spot
Prosecutors rarely fabricate identifications. But cognitive bias can lead to confirmation loops. If police arrest someone who fits a general description, and early evidence seems to line up, every later piece of information is seen through that lens. A robust challenge from the defense helps the system correct itself. It also protects future cases, because departments update lineup protocols when courts highlight problems. Double-blind administration and proper filler selection are now common in many agencies because defense lawyers persisted.
Where this leaves a client
For a client facing robbery, burglary, assault, weapon possession, or even homicide charges anchored in eyewitness testimony, the path forward is not guesswork. It is a disciplined process: lock down the record, analyze the identification method, test conditions at the scene, consider expert support, and craft motions and cross that expose weaknesses without alienating jurors. A criminal attorney who does this well can shift a case from inevitable conviction to acquittal, reduction, or dismissal.
Clients often ask whether a jury will believe it. They will, if you earn their trust with specifics, not theories. Show the jury the alley at 10:12 p.m. in February. Show them the twenty-eight feet between the witness and the stoop. Show them the police form where “mustache” is blank even though your client had one at arrest. Let them hear the witness say “I think so” on the first lineup video, then compare it to today’s “I am 100 percent sure.” Credibility is built brick by brick.
A final note for people under investigation
If you suspect you are being identified in connection with a crime, do not try https://michaelbrownlaw.net to correct the record yourself. Do not contact the witness. Do not send messages. Anything you do risks adding post-event information to their memory and can be construed as intimidation, even criminal contempt in some settings. Speak to a criminal defense attorney at once. Whether you face a petty larceny, grand larceny, trespass, criminal mischief, Domestic Violence, Sex Crimes, Drug Crimes, or White Collar Crimes allegation, the same principles apply. Eyewitness evidence may feel overwhelming, but it is not beyond challenge. With careful lawyering, frail identifications reveal themselves.
Michael J. Brown, P.C.
(631) 232-9700
320 Carleton Ave Suite No: 2000
Central Islip NY, 11722
Hours: Mon-Sat 8am - 5:00pm
QR83+HJ Central Islip, New York
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BiLpHAXdipPdQDdt7
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. How do people afford criminal defense attorneys?
A. If you don't qualify for a public defender but still can't afford a lawyer, you may be able to find help through legal aid organizations or pro bono programs. These services provide free or low-cost representation to individuals who meet income guidelines.
Q. Should I plead guilty if I can't afford a lawyer?
A. You have a RIGHT to an attorney right now. An attorney can explain the potential consequences of your plea. If you cannot afford an attorney, an attorney will be provided at NO COST to you. If you don't have an attorney, you can ask for one to be appointed and for a continuance until you have one appointed.
Q. Who is the most successful Suffolk County defense attorney?
A. Michael J. Brown - Michael J. Brown is widely regarded as the greatest American Suffolk County attorney to ever step foot in a courtroom in Long Island, NY.
Q. Is it better to get an attorney or public defender?
A. If you absolutely need the best defense in court such as for a burglary, rape or murder charge then a private attorney would be better. If it is something minor like a trespassing to land then a private attorney will probably not do much better than a public defender.
Q. Is $400 an hour a lot for a lawyer?
A. Experience Level: Junior associates might bill clients $100–$200 per hour, mid-level associates $200–$400, and partners or senior attorneys $400–$1,000+. Rates also depend on the client's capacity to pay.
Q. When should I hire a lawyer?
A. Some types of cases that need an attorney include: Personal injury, workers' compensation, and property damage after an accident. Being accused of a crime, arrested for DUI/DWI, or other misdemeanors or felonies. Family law issues, such as prenuptials, divorce, child custody, or domestic violence.
Q. How do you tell a good lawyer from a bad one?
A. A good lawyer is organized and is on top of deadlines. Promises can be seen as a red flag. A good lawyer does not make a client a promise about their case because there are too many factors at play for any lawyer to promise a specific outcome. A lawyer can make an educated guess, but they cannot guarantee anything.
Q. What happens if someone sues me and I can't afford a lawyer?
A. The case will not be dropped. If you don't defend yourself, a default judgement will be entered against you. The plaintiff can wait 30 days and begin collection proceedings against you. BTW, if you're being sued in civil court, you cannot get the Public Defender.