Should victim's 'dying blink' be allowed at murder trial?
CINCINNATI (AP) - A national criminal justice organization is backing an Ohio murder suspect's efforts to exclude from his trial a videotape of a dying man's eye blinks, which allegedly identified him as the gunman.
Ricardo Woods is to go on trial Monday in the October 2010 fatal shooting of 35-year-old David Chandler in Cincinnati. Chandler was shot in the head and neck as he sat in his car. He was paralyzed when police interviewed him days before his death and could only communicate by blinking.
The judge ruled jurors can see that videotaped interview.
Prosecutors say Chandler clearly identified 34-year-old Woods as the shooter. But the defense insists the identification is unreliable.
The Innocence Project filed a motion last week supporting that request and offering research on eyewitness identification.
Ricardo Woods is to go on trial Monday in the October 2010 fatal shooting of 35-year-old David Chandler in Cincinnati. Chandler was shot in the head and neck as he sat in his car. He was paralyzed when police interviewed him days before his death and could only communicate by blinking.
The judge ruled jurors can see that videotaped interview.
Prosecutors say Chandler clearly identified 34-year-old Woods as the shooter. But the defense insists the identification is unreliable.
The Innocence Project filed a motion last week supporting that request and offering research on eyewitness identification.
YES.
Our lovely legal system at work..Â
Blinking, sign language, writing... all forms of communication. Yes, it should be allowed. What would Stephen Hawking have to say? Wait... that's not his real voice. (sarcasm)
Normally I like the Innocence Project, they have dona a lot if work with DNA to overturn the sentences of wrongly convicted people. That being said, I disagree with them on this. The victim identified Woods as the person who shot him through his only possible means of communication, as long as the identification followed police procedure ie: he saw more that one individual in a line up or picture line up and was not led by the police in any way (which should be easy to determine since it was video taped), I think that it should be admitted. If the defense wants to discredit the eye witness testimony they can do that with experts who can testify to the inaccuracy of eyewitness accounts.Â
 @alaska_dreamin I would agree - but would also require that there is a substantial amount of OTHER evidence to back this up. And there should be proof that the man was in a stable state of mind when giving this "testimony".
One other factor to consider would be the nature of the questions, cops are not unknown to use leading questions to bring in a predetermined conclusion. Was the defendant's attorney present, and did he have a chance to ask his own questions?
 @OrcasThunder I doubt a jury would be able to convict beyond a reasonable doubt from just this video, especially if the defense uses an expert to testify to the unreliability of eye witness identification. Also I am betting that there is more evidence than this or the judge would have thrown the case out due to lack of evidence, but now that you pose those questions, I am wondering what other evidence they have.
I'd be curious to know how he identified someone strictly by blinking his eyes. And were the police very VERY careful during their interview to not "lead" the victim into who to identify?
 @katiemcc "were the police very VERY careful during their interview to not "lead" the victim"
A key question.
Cops are know to ask leading questions, even known to lie when talking to a suspect or witness...
Was the dying man's blinks entered as evidence against the accused shooter? Or does that matter? If the shooter had been identified by the dying victim and that victim's only means of communication was blinking his eyes the court and the jury should have access to the video. The shooter is not the victim here and any evidence proving his guilt should be allowed.
 @left-center Did the defense lawyer participate in the questioning, did he ask his own questions?
By itself, this is not a valid testimony.
 @left-center Do you also agree that any evidence NOT "proving" guilt should be excluded?