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.
Look at him, is this a guilty man?
This seems to be as valid as a dying declaration, if it was done without prejudicially influencing the outcome.Â
Maybe there should be a Executing Scum Project.
Why should the #!!!#*** Innocence Project get to decide whether this testimony is allowed???
I think it should be allowed! I think the jury should make up their own minds,as to being reputable or not!
Oh for cripes sake. Â Allow the video and let the jury decide what's reasonable. Â If THEY don't feel it to be reputable then let THEM make the decision with caveats from the "experts". Â That plus the rest of the evidence can allow them to do what they need to do.
Â
Â