Defenders facing identification testimony from a single eyewitness or suggestive procedure.

Daubert / Reliability Challenge, Eyewitness Identification

FRE 702 + jury-instruction motion to challenge suggestive eyewitness ID procedures. NAS 2014 grounded.

Move for an expert-witness instruction or pre-trial reliability hearing citing NAS 2014. Cross-exam targets the specific procedure (lineup, photo array, show-up) used in this case against the NAS-recommended best practices.

Summary of cited source
According to the Innocence Project, at least one mistaken eyewitness identification was present in almost three-quarters of DNA exonerations.
NAS, Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification (2014), p. 11(opens in new tab)

Order, $297 →

PDF delivered to your inbox.

What this template gives you that the discipline-specific treatise does not.

01.
Not undated boilerplate: the NAS 2014 findings are source-linked to the report, so the citation is one you can verify before you file. Mistaken eyewitness ID is the leading contributing factor in DNA-exoneration cases tracked by the Innocence Project.
02.
Many jurisdictions still permit single-witness identifications without pre-trial reliability hearings.
03.
NAS 2014 recommends sequential lineups, double-blind administration, immediate confidence statements, non-compliance is cross-exam fuel.

Authorities inside · source-checkable

The controlling authority this template is built on.

Before you buy, see the spine of the deliverable. Verbatim quotes are reproduced word for word from the opinion they cite; any attributed summary is labelled as a summary, never dressed up as a quote. Each entry links to its source so you can confirm it yourself. Nothing is paraphrased into a citation it does not support.

1Controlling authority cited

1Verbatim opinion quote

1Checkable source URL

1Independent source host

Lead controlling authorityVerbatim quote
“According to the Innocence Project, at least one mistaken eyewitness identification was present in almost three-quarters of DNA exonerations.”
National Academies of Sciences. Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2014 (the report attributes this figure to the Innocence Project, not to NAS in its own voice). · Introduction, p. 11Verify the source

Provenance: every citation above carries a source URL that was fetched and confirmed reachable when the template was authored. A citation without a working source URL does not ship. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to circuit-specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.

Order intake.

Daubert, Eyewitness ID, Case details

Delivery email *

Brief PDF delivered here. Stripe checkout uses this address.

Case identifier *

Do not enter the actual client name. Use any internal identifier, BenchRecon never needs the real name.

Jurisdiction *

Court the matter is pending in. Stamps the brief cover and the conform-to-jurisdiction caveat in the motion language (federal or state court, the methodology challenges apply under either standard).

Firm name (optional)

Billing entity, rendered on the brief cover and included on the invoice when provided.

Privilege handling

Intake data is stored under attorney work-product principles. BenchRecon does not access the intake payload outside of brief generation. Do not enter privileged client communications, defense strategy, or identifying details, submit only the case parameters this form requests.

Charged after you submit. 7-day full refund.

Frequently asked questions.

What does the brief contain?

Seven sections: cover (your case identifier + jurisdiction stamped on), reliability standard recap (Daubert v. Merrell Dow factors), the lead authority's verbatim finding with source URL, the cumulative-error history with cited exonerations / IG audits / appellate opinions, recommended FRE 702 motion language (~250 words editable), a 10-15 question cross-examination question bank, and the methods + source URLs bibliography.

Is this legal advice?

No. The template is a research artifact modeled on the published critique literature for this discipline. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to the controlling circuit's FRE 702 doctrine and the facts of the case before filing.

How fast is delivery?

Stripe checkout completes in seconds; the PDF is emailed to the address you provide. Templates are pre-built, there is no per-case data pipeline running.

Do you cite anything I cannot independently verify?

No. Every citation in every brief carries a source URL stored alongside. Lead authorities are PCAST 2016, NAS 2009 / 2014, NRC 1979 / 2003, FBI/DOJ 2015. All are public-domain and linked to their original publication pages.

Refund policy?

7-day full refund, no questions asked.