EYEWITNESS CORROBORATION REQUIREMENTS AS PROTECTIONS AGAINST WRONGFUL CONVICTION: THE HIDDEN QUESTIONS

David Crump, University of Houston Law Center

Abstract

Several commentators have suggested the adoption of a rule requiring corroboration of eyewitness identification testimony. The concern underlying this proposal has merit, because misidentifications probably account for the largest share of erroneous convictions. But no one has catalogued the possible side effects of such a rule. Would the proposal have bad effects on the control of crime? Would it produce disproportionate acquittals in some crime categories, so that it might amount to a “Violent Predator’s Relief Act”? Would it result in even greater oppression of innocent people? What do the proponents mean by “corroboration,” anyway? What corroboration should be deemed sufficient? What exceptions should be made? This article is an effort to address these questions and to propose a workable rule: one that can reduce the frequency of erroneous convictions while minimizing the side effects.