Any trial attorney will have numerous stories of cases when one witness describes events differently from the next witness. In fact, inconsistent testimony is expected and any trial attorney will prepare for trial knowing a jury will hear different versions of events. This may sound obvious to non-lawyers, but many people expect that eyewitness testimony is the "best" evidence and is very persuasive to jurors.
However, more and more research is exposing the flaws inherent with eyewitness testimony. In fact, most DNA-based exonerations freed suspects whose convictions were largely based upon eyewitness testimony.
A great article was recently published in the New York Times by Laura Beil that exposes this topic. Click the following link to the New York Times article. She summarizes recent legal actions that are challenging the value of eyewitnesses and cites several scientific experiments that question eyewitness reliability.
At Taylor & Waldrop, our lawyers don't take eyewitness testimony at face value. We will strive to discover and expose facts that can discredit eyewitnesses to minimize their potentially devastating impact for our clients.