Process v. Outcome: The proper role of corroborative evidence in due process analysis of eyewitness identification testimony

The reliability of criminal identifications is highly contested in both legal and psychological circles. Commentators and psychologists label eyewitness evidence "inherently suspect" and argue that suggestive procedures often increase the risk not only of out-of-court misidentification, but also of in-court misidentification. Indeed, even the Supreme Court recognizes that " [t] he vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known" and that "the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification." These concerns are particularly troublesome because identifications are among the most common forms of evidence presented at trials and are frequently an essential piece of evidence leading to a defendant's conviction.