Se habla Español | Wir sprechen Deutsch | Mówimy po polsku
Spanish Translation German Translation Polish Translation
Contact us for your initial consultation
847.577.8700
posted on 7/14/18

A federal jury ordered the City of Chicago to pay over $17 million to a man who spent over two decades serving time for a crime he did not commit.

Much earlier, prosecutors charged Jacques Rivera with the 1988 shooting death of 16-year-old Felix Valentin. A jury convicted Mr. Rivera, largely on the testimony of lone eyewitness Oscar Lopez, who was only 12 at the time. More recently, Lopez has told several people several times that Rivera was not the shooter. According to defense attorneys, discredited Chicago Police Officer Reynaldo Guevara convinced the boy to change his story so it would fit investigator’s version of events. Moreover, they claimed, Guevara and his partners filed fraudulent reports. Guevara himself repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination while he was on the stand.

In addition to compensatory damages, the jury ordered Guevara and his former partners to individually pay punitive damages.

Problems with Eyewitness Testimony in Chicago

In prosecutions of violent crimes, prosecutors often depend heavily on eyewitness testimony. In TV and movies, something emotionally compelling happens when a witness points to a person in the courtroom and says “that is the guy.” Many times, these moments are equally as powerful in real life trials. Eyewitness testimony may be emotionally compelling, but it is also quite unreliable.

Human memory is not a slow fade. Instead, people forget almost all new information within about 72 hours. To counter this issue, prosecutors usually preserve eyewitness testimony as quickly as possible. They take victim statements and work with composite sketches. These measures, along with the fact that the attack was emotionally traumatic and not something that a person is likely to forget, often overcome this objection.

That emotional trauma creates another problem. Such pressure makes memory worse instead of better. In one study, an inquisitor aggressively questioned test subjects for several hours. A day later, many subjects could not pick the questioner out of a lineup. The excessive duress affected their memory. Imagine what the stress is like if someone points a gun at you.

Cross-racial identification is often an issue in Chicago violent crimes. If a white victim sees 10 black men who are all about the same age, weight, and height, they will all look the same. Cross-racial identification issues have nothing to do with prejudice. It is simply biology and genetics.

Exploiting These Weaknesses in Illinois

Among criminal defense attorneys, opinions vary as to the best time to introduce arguments like these. Sometimes, it is best to talk about them during the voir dire jury examination. This segment of the trial is also known as the jury selection process. If an attorney opens the eyes of the jurors at this point, they may be more inclined to discredit eyewitness testimony that comes up later.

As a bonus, many Cook County judges give attorneys a little more leeway during voir dire examinations in murder and other serious cases. So, prosecutors may not be able to successfully object.

Other times, it is best to introduce evidence about cross-racial identification and other issues during the trial itself. There is a risk that the judge could halt such evidence on the grounds that it is irrelevant. Yet bringing in expert witnesses often confuses the jury, and a confused jury is less likely to go along with the prosecutor’s version of events.

Contact Assertive Attorneys

Very often, eyewitness testimony is both the greatest strength and greatest weakness in a prosecutor’s case. For a confidential consultation with an experienced criminal defense lawyer in Schaumburg, contact Glasgow & Olsson.

(image courtesy of Javier Villaraco)