Abstract
In 1979 the Reverend Bernard T. Pagano, a Roman Catholic priest, was accused of robbing six Delaware stores the previous winter. At Pagano's trial, several witnesses falsely identified him as the robber. After the State rested its case, the prosecution was dismissed because another man confessed to the crime. The story of Ronald Quik, who was prosecuted for robbery of a liquor store in Hutchinson, Kansas, provides a similar illustration. At trial, one eyewitness who had worked with Quik was positive that Quik committed the robbery. A second eyewitness, the liquor store clerk, was able to identify Quik from two moles on his face. Quik was convicted, successfully appealed, and then convicted again on retrial. On his second appeal, the majority of the Kansas Supreme Court again reversed his conviction on the ground that the prosecution's cross-examination of Quik was reversible error. Justice McFarland emphatically disagreed with the majority, reasoning: "Two eyewitnesses positively identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime." During the third trial, however, the State dismissed the case when another man, who looked like the defendant, confessed to committing the crime.
Recommended Citation
Hale, Stephen E.W.
(1988)
"Eyewitness Identification in Utah: A Changing Perspective,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1988:
No.
1, Article 3.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1988/iss1/3