dada_floridamisidentification_final - UDC Law Review

documented evidence. 158 Additionally, judicial safeguards are just a matter of discretionand instruction. Courts that exclude unreliable eyewitness testimony can save judicialresources not only through proper convictions but also through retroactive deterrence inthe investigative process.Consequently, the benefit of implementing these recommendations is an overallsavings in tax dollars. The benefits include savings in incarcerating the guilty instead ofthe innocent, savings in exoneration expenses, savings in civil suits for restitution againstthe state, savings in emotional damage to the victims, savings in expenses incurred toprosecute the innocent, and savings in years lost to the innocent. 159 Thus, the overallbenefits outweigh the burdens of implementing a few cost efficient safeguards.CONCLUSIONThere is a fundamental need for improvement with respect to the collection and use ofidentification evidence. Research has indicated that of the first one hundred and thirtyDNA exonerations, about one hundred and one of the exonerated were wrongfullyconvicted as a consequence of to eyewitness testimony. 160 These statistics are particularlyastonishing and demonstrate the need for uniform statewide improvements of techniquesand regulations across all the channels and instrumentalities of the criminal justice systemin Florida. Minimal procedure safeguards cannot only ensure that miscarriages of justicelike that of Frank Lee Smith are prevented but also the additional savings for the state.Finally, implementing these regulations come at little cost, since they require very littleexpenditure and require an only more detail oriented, meticulous identification processwith firm consequences as deterrence.158 The Justice Project, supra note 133, at 8.159 Id.160 Id.21