The 3-2 decision puts to test the reliability of eyewitness testimony – a foundation stone of evidence in criminal matters.
So, what was the case?
According to court documents, Mark Russell had been convicted in 2008 of robbing a store in Bronx. Apparently, Russell and another man, who had a gun but has never been found, had entered the store, tied up the storeowner and stole the store's money. This was the version of the storeowner.
The videotape of the robbery, however, showed several inconsistencies in the version of the storeowner who saw Russell after about two weeks of the robbery and identified him to the police as the robber. Russell had cornrows, but the owner claimed he had a ponytail and no cornrows. The owner claimed the robbers were using gloves – upon which the police did not collect any fingerprints from the scene – but the videotape showed the two men did not wear gloves.
However, a jury found Russell guilty upon the inconsistent version of a sole eyewitness and sent him to jail for 9 years. Russell's appellate attorney argued that the storeowner had inadvertently engaged in “transference” and misidentified Russell as one of her assailants because she had seen him in the neighborhood.
However, writing in dissent, Justice Mazzarelli wrote, “The trial record contains no psychological evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the complainant's testimony that defendant was her assailant was fallible … Constrained as we are by the record evidence, which amply supports the verdict, it is simply not reasonable to conclude that the jury had an insufficient basis for finding defendant guilty."
Russell's lawyer said he expected Russell to be released from prison immediately.
