Identification and Proof of Guilt, 16 J. Legal Stud. 395, 435 (1987), one commentator observed that [c]ourts have struggled with the question of whether to engage in exclusion when, by chance, an eyewitness encounters or sees the defendant. Professor Gross calls this a "spontaneous identification," and in his study he found "many reported misidentifica-tions originated in this manner," but he was chagrined that persons writing about identification procedures had failed to acknowledge these are prone to errors, and had instead credited their reliability. Margery Malkin Koosed, The Proposed Innocence Protection Act Won't — Unless It Also Curbs Mistaken Eyewitness Identifications, 63 Ohio St. L.J. 263, 300 (2002). 6 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Jones, 666 N.E.2d 994, 1000-01 (Mass. 1996) (<HOLDING>); People v. Walker, 411 N.Y.S.2d 156, 159 (N.Y.
holding no remand required where no fundamental rights are implicated holding no abuse of discretion to exclude expert eyewitness identification testimony where governments case relied on more than eyewitness identification holding that although no governmental action contributed to the eyewitness identification and no due process rights were implicated fairness required preclusion of the evidence holding the error harmless due to eyewitness corroboration of the victims testimony holding admissible expert testimony concerning factors that may impair eyewitness identification and rejecting that concerning a particular eyewitness credibility and the statistical probability of eyewitness misidentification