We defense lawyers have long argued these things. But we have also been shot down by persuasive prosecutors who have pushed the notion that crime victims and witnesses seldom misidentify criminal perpetrators.

Then, along came DNA. Genetic marking evidence has not only been a valuable crime-solving tool but has also resulted in hundreds of exonerations across the country, many in cases involving serious charges such as rape and murder. Some of these exonerations have resulted in the release of individuals who had been serving life sentences or, worse yet, were on death row.

An analysis of the cases that have resulted in DNA exonerations has revealed that many of those imprisoned in such cases were convicted on the basis of faulty eyewitness identifications. One such person, Kirk Bloodsworth, was convicted in Baltimore County of the rape and murder of a young girl. A parade of witnesses identified Bloodsworth as the perpetrator in live lineups and photographic arrays, the presentation of which in court produced the impression of a mountain of evidence against him. He was convicted, and when asked if he had anything to say prior to sentencing, Bloodsworth said he didn't know what to say, because he was innocent and would never have done such a thing. He received the death penalty.

Fortunately, the case was reversed on appeal. Though he was convicted again, Bloodsworth received a non-parolable life sentence the next time around, which gave him several years to contemplate his innocence. Eventually, DNA evidence proved it, Bloodsworth was released, and another man, who bore a striking resemblance to Bloodsworth, was arrested and convicted.

Again, the Bloodsworth case is just one of many in which people falsely convicted based on eyewitness identification evidence were later exonerated by DNA. It makes one wonder how many others have been falsely convicted and were not lucky enough to reap the benefits of DNA analysis.

One would hope it would make prosecutors wonder, and that all of these exonerations would make them more circumspect about the cases they proscute. One would also hope prosecutors would be more leery of cases in which evidence is scant -- aside from eyewitness testimony. Truth be told, the jury is still out on this issue, but I have seen little evidence of this. More often than not (in my experience anyway), a defense lawyer who suggests that a prosecutor consider dismissing a case because it is based on "only" eyewitness identification evidence is likely to get a roll of the eyes and an accusation that he is a "bleeding heart" or a "believer" (which is another word, I suppose, for a sucker).

Hopefully, over time prosecutors will be less convinced by such evidence and will demand more before they embark on prosecutions that may deprive innocent people of their liberty.  After all, nothing is worse than finding out that someone who has spent 15 or 20 years in jail was actually innocent of the crime fore which he was convicted. 

Nothing, that is, except for never finding out.