{"id":6336,"date":"2014-07-28T23:05:09","date_gmt":"2014-07-29T03:05:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/doyonavocats.ca\/lidentification-par-temoin-oculaire\/"},"modified":"2020-10-04T09:07:40","modified_gmt":"2020-10-04T13:07:40","slug":"lidentification-par-temoin-oculaire","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/lidentification-par-temoin-oculaire\/","title":{"rendered":"L’identification par t\u00e9moin oculaire"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nous avons r\u00e9cemment d\u00fb travailler sur un cas o\u00f9 l\u2019identification par t\u00e9moin oculaire \u00e9tait remise en question.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nous r\u00e9sumons ici certaines sources que nous avons consult\u00e9es.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lisa Dufraimont, \u00ab R. v. Hay\u00a0: Enhanced Safeguards Against Wronful Conviction In Identification Cases \u00bb, (2014) 6 C.R. (7th<\/sup>) 246-249.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Nous retenons notamment de l\u2019article ce qui suit.<\/span><\/p>\n

La Cour supr\u00eame dans Hay<\/span><\/a>\u00a0a apporter des pr\u00e9cisions importantes relativement \u00e0 l\u2019identification par t\u00e9moins oculaires.<\/span><\/p>\n

[41]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Bien que l\u2019appr\u00e9ciation de la cr\u00e9dibilit\u00e9 et du poids de la d\u00e9position d\u2019un t\u00e9moin oculaire rel\u00e8ve du jury et que, dans certaines circonstances, la d\u00e9position d\u2019un seul t\u00e9moin oculaire puisse fonder une d\u00e9claration de culpabilit\u00e9, un jury ne devrait pas \u00eatre autoris\u00e9 \u00e0 rendre un verdict de culpabilit\u00e9 en s\u2019appuyant sur une d\u00e9position d\u2019un t\u00e9moin oculaire qui ne pourrait \u00e9tayer une inf\u00e9rence de culpabilit\u00e9 hors de tout doute raisonnable.\u00a0 Autrement dit, il ne faudrait pas expliquer au jury qu\u2019il peut d\u00e9clarer un accus\u00e9 coupable en se basant uniquement sur la d\u00e9position d\u2019un t\u00e9moin oculaire lorsque la d\u00e9position, m\u00eame si l\u2019on y accorde foi, laisserait n\u00e9cessairement subsister un doute raisonnable dans l\u2019esprit d\u2019un jur\u00e9 raisonnable; voir\u00a0R. c. Arcuri<\/i>, 2001 CSC 54, [2001] 2 R.C.S. 828, par.\u00a021\u201125;\u00a0R. c. Reitsma<\/i>, [1998] 1 R.C.S. 769, inf. (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 303;\u00a0R. c. Zurowski<\/i>, 2004 CSC 72, [2004] 3 R.C.S. 509;\u00a0\u00c9tats\u2011Unis d\u2019Am\u00e9rique c. Shephard<\/i>, [1977]\u00a02\u00a0R.C.S.\u00a01067, p.\u00a01080.\u00a0 En fait, si la preuve du minist\u00e8re public consiste uniquement en la d\u00e9position d\u2019un t\u00e9moin oculaire qui soul\u00e8verait n\u00e9cessairement un doute raisonnable dans l\u2019esprit d\u2019un jur\u00e9 raisonnable, le juge du proc\u00e8s saisi d\u2019une demande de verdict impos\u00e9 doit ordonner un acquittement (Arcuri<\/i>, par.\u00a021).<\/span><\/p>\n

En r\u00e9sum\u00e9, l’auteur retient ce qui suit.<\/span><\/p>\n

(1) [I]t is now open clearly open to trial judges to direct acquittals where Crown presents only weak and unsupported eyewitness identification against an accused.<\/span><\/p>\n

(2)[S]ince this holding is framed as an interpretation of the\u00a0Shephard<\/em> test for the sufficiency of evidence, which also applies at the preliminary inquiry, it now appears open to prelimiray inquiry judges to discharge accused persons in weak eyewitness identification cases on the same grounds.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sur le test de\u00a0Shephard, R. c Arcuri<\/span><\/a> <\/em>mentionne au para. 21 ce qui suit\u00a0 :<\/span><\/p>\n

21 La question que doit se poser le juge pr\u00e9sidant l\u2019enqu\u00eate pr\u00e9liminaire aux termes du\u00a0par.\u00a0548(1)\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0du\u00a0Code criminel\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/i>\u00a0est identique \u00e0 celle que doit se poser le juge du proc\u00e8s saisi d\u2019une requ\u00eate de la d\u00e9fense en vue d\u2019obtenir un verdict impos\u00e9, savoir \u00ab\u00a0[s]\u2019il existe ou non des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve au vu desquels un jury \u00e9quitable, ayant re\u00e7u des directives appropri\u00e9es, pourrait conclure \u00e0 la culpabilit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb :\u00a0\u00a0Shephard<\/i>, pr\u00e9cit\u00e9, p.\u00a01080; voir \u00e9galement\u00a0R. c. Monteleone<\/i>, [1987] 2\u00a0R.C.S. 154, p.\u00a0160.\u00a0 Selon ce crit\u00e8re, le juge pr\u00e9sidant l\u2019enqu\u00eate pr\u00e9liminaire doit renvoyer la personne inculp\u00e9e pour qu\u2019elle subisse son proc\u00e8s \u00ab\u00a0chaque fois qu\u2019il existe des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve admissibles qui pourraient, s\u2019ils \u00e9taient crus, entra\u00eener une d\u00e9claration de culpabilit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0:\u00a0\u00a0Shephard<\/i>, p.\u00a01080.<\/span><\/p>\n

(3) Even where the Crown’s case on identification is not limited to the eyewitness testimony, judges will be precluded from instructing juries that they may convict on weak eyewitness identification alone.<\/span><\/p>\n

J. Copeland, \u00ab Helping Jurors Recognize The Frailties Of Eyewitness Identification Evidence \u00bb, (2002) 46 Crim. L.Q. 188-209.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Nous retenons notamment de l’article ce qui suit.<\/span><\/p>\n

Les psychologues s’entendent \u00e0 dire que la m\u00e9moire comporte trois \u00e9tapes : (1) l’acquisition; (2) la r\u00e9tention et; (3) l’extraction.<\/span><\/p>\n

(1) L’acquisition<\/span><\/p>\n

C’est l’\u00e9tape \u00e0 laquelle le t\u00e9moin fait des observations eu \u00e9gard \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nement original. Les facteur qui affectent l’acquisition sont de deux ordres.<\/span><\/p>\n

a) Les facteurs li\u00e9s \u00e0 l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement<\/span><\/p>\n

– La dur\u00e9e de l’observation de la figure de la personne vis\u00e9e.<\/span><\/p>\n

– La fr\u00e9quence de l’observation de la personne vis\u00e9e.<\/span><\/p>\n

– La violence de l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement.<\/span><\/p>\n

– La pr\u00e9sence d’une arme.<\/span><\/p>\n

b) Les facteurs li\u00e9s au t\u00e9moin<\/span><\/p>\n

– Le stress du t\u00e9moin.<\/span><\/p>\n

– L’identification de type \u00ab cross-racial \u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n

(2) La r\u00e9tention<\/span><\/p>\n

C’est l’\u00e9tape entre le moment des premi\u00e8res observations et le moment o\u00f9 le t\u00e9moin est appel\u00e9 \u00e0 parler de ce dont il a \u00e9t\u00e9 t\u00e9moin (extraction). La qualit\u00e9 de la r\u00e9tention d\u00e9pend de deux facteurs et quelque fois, d’un troisi\u00e8me.<\/span><\/p>\n

a) La dur\u00e9e entre l’acquisition et l’extraction.<\/span><\/p>\n

– Bref, une identification faite rapidement apr\u00e8s les premi\u00e8res observations est\u00a0plus fiables que celle faite plus tard.<\/span><\/p>\n

b) Les informations post-\u00e9v\u00e9nement.<\/span><\/p>\n

– Si un t\u00e9moin re\u00e7oit de l’information apr\u00e8s l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement (possiblement des enqu\u00eateurs, les m\u00e9dias ou en parlant \u00e0 d’autres t\u00e9moins, il peut incorporer cette information inconsciemment dans sa m\u00e9moire.<\/span><\/p>\n

c) Le transfert inconscient<\/span><\/p>\n

– Cela arrive lorsque le t\u00e9moin\u00a0confond une personne qu’elle a vu dans une situation X avec une personne qu’elle a vu\u00a0dans une situation Y (ex. photo-biased line-ups :\u00a0photo-line-ups vs in-person line-ups).<\/span><\/p>\n

(3) L’extraction<\/span><\/p>\n

C’est l’\u00e9tape \u00e0 laquelle le t\u00e9moin est appel\u00e9 \u00e0 se rem\u00e9morer l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement.<\/span><\/p>\n

– Les instructions relatives \u00e0 un \u00ab line-up \u00bb peuvent affecter la pr\u00e9cision des souvenirs.<\/span><\/p>\n

L’utilit\u00e9 de mentionner que le t\u00e9moin peut ne choisir aucune des personnes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Question suggestives<\/span><\/p>\n

– Le degr\u00e9 de similitude entre le suspect et les autres dans un \u00ab line-up \u00bb peut venir affecter la pr\u00e9cision des souvenirs.<\/span><\/p>\n

Le moins les autres ressembles au suspect, plus les chances de fausse identification sont grandes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Voir \u00e9galement les documents suivants qui se\u00a0retrouvent sur Internet.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(1) Un syst\u00e8me plus juste: La voie vers l\u2019\u00e9limination des condamnations injustifi\u00e9es. Voir chapitre 5<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

(2) Directives \u00e0 l’intention de la police : L’identification par t\u00e9moin oculaire avant le proc\u00e8s. Voir ici<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Dans un article de\u00a0Mark J. Sandler<\/a> <\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Here is a non-exhaustive list of features of evidence drawn from the jurisprudence that might figure prominently in questioning the accuracy of eyewitness identification:<\/p>\n

Brevity of observation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Lighting or environmental conditions when observations are made.<\/span><\/p>\n

Distance between the witness and the perpetrator.<\/span><\/p>\n

The fact that the perpetrator and\/or the witness were moving during the observation period.<\/span><\/p>\n

The length of time between observation and the subsequent identification or description of the events by the witness.<\/span><\/p>\n

The perpetrator was a stranger.<\/span><\/p>\n

The lack of significance of the events to the witness when observed.<\/span><\/p>\n

The witness’s shock or distress or impairment due to alcohol or drugs.<\/span><\/p>\n

The witness’s vantage point (eg obstructed or side profile).<\/span><\/p>\n

The witness’s poor eyesight.<\/span><\/p>\n

The witness’s focus (eg. on a gun rather than the perpetrator’s face).<\/span><\/p>\n

The lack of distinctive features of the perpetrator or his\/her clothing.<\/span><\/p>\n

Inability in the earliest description of the perpetrator to recall any detail or truly distinguishing features.<\/span><\/p>\n

A description of the perpetrator contains features not shared by the accused.<\/span><\/p>\n

A description of the perpetrator does not contain prominent features of the accused that would be expected to be seen.<\/span><\/p>\n

Significant changes in the descriptions of the perpetrator or “improvements” in descriptions through time.<\/span><\/p>\n

An earlier identification of someone else as the perpetrator.<\/span><\/p>\n

Information communicated to the witness prior to a line-up[8]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0that creates the expectation that the perpetrator is known to the police and is in the line-up (or the existence of that expectation despite what was or was not communicated).<\/span><\/p>\n

Information communicated to the witness prior to a line-up that promotes the importance of making a positive identification.<\/span><\/p>\n

Involvement of the investigating officer or others in a way that consciously or subconsciously singles out the suspect.<\/span><\/p>\n

The witness’s motivation to make a positive identification:(eg. removing a criminal from the streets, desire to please the investigators).<\/span><\/p>\n

Poor identification processes: show-ups, or a simultaneous display of multiple photographs, rather than a sequential photographic display.<\/span><\/p>\n

Photographs that highlight the suspect or predispose the witness to select him or her.<\/span><\/p>\n

Expressed limitations or qualifications upon the identification (“I’m not positive or sure”).<\/span><\/p>\n

Contamination as between eyewitnesses or conversely, significant discrepancies as between eyewitness’s descriptions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Witnesses observing the suspect’s image in media accounts, at the police station or otherwise before a line-up.<\/span><\/p>\n

Reinforcement or affirmation (deliberate or subconscious) of the witness’s selection of the suspect once made, as affecting the witness’s subsequent confidence or certainty in the identification.<\/p>\n

Disagreement or disappointment with the witness’s selection of someone other than the suspect, as affecting a subsequent identification.<\/p>\n

A validly conducted identification that follows an earlier tainted or flawed identification process.[9]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Reliance on an in-dock identification.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"head_img_03\"<\/a><\/p>\n

[10]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nous avons r\u00e9cemment d\u00fb travailler sur un cas o\u00f9 l\u2019identification par t\u00e9moin oculaire \u00e9tait remise en question. Nous r\u00e9sumons ici certaines sources que nous avons consult\u00e9es. Lisa Dufraimont, \u00ab R. v. Hay\u00a0: Enhanced Safeguards Against Wronful Conviction In Identification Cases \u00bb, (2014) 6 C.R. (7th) 246-249. Nous retenons notamment de l\u2019article ce qui suit. La […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":15414,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[120],"tags":[237],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6336"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6336"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6336\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15414"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6336"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}