"How far should these general or specific cautions go? In R. v.
Sokolov [case that resulted in êye witness misidentification changes to ciminal law],142 Mr. Justice Melvyn Green of the Ontario Court of Justice, noting eyewitness misidentification is probably the greatest single cause of factually wrongful convictions, stated:
"
Eyewitness misidentification has long been regarded as the leading, if not overwhelming, cause of a wrongful conviction.127 In R. v. Hanemaayer, Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg, speaking on behalf of the unanimous Ontario Court of Appeal, commented on how flawed identification procedures can contribute to miscarriages of justice and
the importance of taking great care in conducting those procedures.128
...
Its inherent frailties demand that
special care must be taken in the assessment of such evidence. Such care, however, does not translate into a rule of exclusion or complete probative negation. It is most certainly not the rule that eyewitness identification evidence even standing alone can never ground a proper conviction. The rule, rather, is that the exercise of adjudication in this type of case must be especially cautious.143"
"When meeting with witnesses in serious cases, it is wise, if it is feasible and practical, to
have a third party present to ensure there is no later disagreement about what took place at the meeting."
http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/ptj-spj/ch5.html
Rights that I took for granted, but which were not in place in a NC court ... that confused me during trial.
I suppose I`m still thinking it through ... from beginning to end. Trials that result in living in a cage for life shouldn`t have any monkey business, in my opinion.