A Case of MisIdentification - Supporting Facts and Testimony

Eye witness identification cases where the sole evidence is eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. In fact, the Supreme Court, after reviewing scientific evidence, as well as, cases where identification testimony was challenged, articulated that not only a high incidence of wrongful convictions are due to misidentification, but that misidentification is the greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationally.

This fact has prompted the courts to re-write and release new rules concerning identification cases effective as of September 4, 2012. The court has directed new jury instructions and other protections be developed to address the factors that influence identifications such as, high levels of stress on the eye witness; the witness's brief exposure to the perpetrator; whether the presence of a weapon impacts the ability to focus on the perpetrator; and how witnesses can be influenced by other witnesses or law enforcement; and to have jurors understand the issues surrounding identification evidence.

Mr. Hogan has been wrongfully accused, convicted and sentenced to 77 years in the Colorado Department of Corrections based solely on a misidentification. In fact, his conviction rests entirely on the eye-witness testimony of the victim, as there is absolutely NO physical evidence linking Mr. Hogan to this offense.

Below are some supporting facts and testimony challenging the accuracy and reliability of the victim's identification and several factors that influenced her identification, such as statements made by law enforcement which were impermissibly suggestive, and the tailored identifications of her husband and mother, neither of whom were present during the offense.

SUPPORTING FACTS AND TESTIMONY

I AM ACTUALLY INNOCENT!

In the victim's own hand written words, in an attempt to describe the perpetrator... "I did not get a good look at his face."

Click her to see Excerpt 1

When asked to describe the person for the court, the victim described everything except what he looked like.

Click her to see Excerpt 2

When asked about "specific details" of the perpetrators face, she could not offer any.  

Click her to see Excerpt 3

HOW THEN AM I PICKED OUT OF A PHOTO LINE-UP?

The "real" perpetrator has a TATTOO on his hands. When asked if there was anything unusual about the perpetrators appearance, the victim described a TATTOO in his hand.  She even drew a picture of it in her police report. 

Click her to see Excerpt 4

The victim believes the Tattoo is an "identifying mark."

Click her to see Excerpt 5

Did you know Jason Hogan DOES NOT have any tattoos on his hands?

Click her to see Excerpt 6 / Click here to see Photograph

If the victim was so cretain initially; then why did she feel the need to ask about a tattoo.  This clearly shows doubt and uncertainty.

Click her to see Excerpt 7

If the "Real" perpetrator has a tattoo on his hands and I do not;

WHY AM I IN PRISON FOR 77 YEARS?

How did this case even go past a preliminary hearing?

Clearly I AM NOT the perpetrator;

Clearly this fact alone proves I am ACTUALLY INNOCENT!

Channel 2 News at 9:00pm reports a robbery at the Cherry Creek Mall.  

The suspect is described as a tall, white male, age 17 - 20.

Certainly the 9:00pm News SHOULD NOT be an "Investigator's" ONLY source of "investigative facts" WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION to name a suspect.

Especially when the description is so broad and so vague. 

How was I even named a suspect in the case? The answer is simple, because I was already in custody, so why not clear the books?

Click her to see Excerpt 8

Arapahoe County Sheriff Investigator Kirsten Ann Nelson, who names me the suspect in the case, was later FORCED TO RESIGN from the Sheriff's Department for tampering with evidence.  

This action and behavior alone clearly displays deception, distrust, and a "By ALL Means Necessary" attitude to gain a conviction.  Disregarding the very Constitution and the Rights to Due Process in which the law is supposed to uphold.  

Given the "lack" of description, or any identifying information by the victim, Denver Police had NO WAY of putting together a list of possible suspects to view in a photo array. 

Click her to see Excerpt 9

Because Denver Detective Levert White had no identification information to go off of, he relied on Arapahoe County Sheriff Investigator Kirsten Nelson to provide him with a photo array.

Click her to see Excerpt 10

Before viewing the photo array, the victim and the victim's mother and husband were informed "an arrest had been made", predisposing the victim and family present, to believe that her "assailant" was in one of six pictures in the photo array.

Click her to see Excerpt 11

CLEARLY THIS WAS A SUGGESTIVE OR COERCED TACTIC.
BUT DETECTIVE WHITE DID NOT STOP THERE...

Wanting to be certain of her identification, the victim asked about the tattoo, and if any of the men had a tattoo? the detective's response was "THE TATTOO DOSEN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY CAN BE TAKEN OFF."

Click her to see Excerpt 12

Detective White purposefully disregarded a meaningful identification mark, (i.e Tattoo), in which the victim claimed to be professionally done, and reduced it to something irrelevant and unimportant; All during the line-up process, changing the victim's perception of importance regarding the tattoo.  Clearly this tactic was "suggestive".

Click her to see Excerpt 13

How does a person testify as a "witness"

to a crime they WERE NOT present for 

and in fact DID NOT see?

Furthermore, how does a person claim to identify someone they NEVER SAW commit a crime

and this testimony be accepted? 

For reasons that were never explained, Detective White allowed both the victim's husband and her mother to be in the room where the victim made the identification.  The victim's husband who WAS NOT PRESENT AT ALL during the commission of the crime, who could offer NO assistance to the 911 Operator, testified at trial that upon seeing the photo array, his eyes were "drawn" to my picture in the photo numbered 3 in the photo array. 

Click her to see Excerpt 14 

The Victim's mother, who was also NOT PRESENT AT ANY STAGE of the alleged crime, who NEVER filed a police report, and who NEVER told police she could make an identification, claimed that she had a "reaction" to my photo, and that she would have picked me out of the same photo array shown to her daughter, (i.e. the victim) as the person who robbed her.  

Click her to see Excerpt 15

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? 

IS THIS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR THE WILD WILD WEST?!

The Victim's mother claims, that while out shopping with her daughter and others they walked past two men, a taller and a shorter one.  She remembers them because she saw the same men the previous day while at a different mall shopping.  And though she DID NOT see these two men again the rest of the day; she picks me from a photo array as the taller of the two men and the one who robbed her daughter.  

Click her to see Excerpt 16

Isn't it awfully suspicious, or should I say convenient, 

that two people, NEITHER OF WHOM WERE PRESENT during the commission of the crime, 

NOR SAW ANYONE commit a crime, 

pick me out of a line-up?

Both the husband and the mother DID NOT tell the police about their "identification" until about 10 months later.  Meanwhile, the bank teller, who had a clear view of both the victim and the robber, stated that NONE of the persons in the photo array looked familiar.  

The husband blatantly and purposely perjured himself under oath in a court of law, completely contradicting his previous statements, police reports and 911 Operator call.  

The Victim dropped the robber off at a nearby strip mall.  As they were pulling into the mall, her husband allegedly caught a glimpse of her and the robber as he was exiting the parking lot in a separate vehicle. 

The husband told 911 operator that he could offer NO other description of the person other than that he had on a stocking cap, brown sweater, and looked white.  The husband did not even see the man well enough to be able to tell the operator his age.
  
In the Husband's own written statement to police, made an hour later, he described the robber as white, wearing a ski hat, and "grungy," but offered NO further description even though he was expressly asked to write down everything he could remember.  


However, by the time of pre-tril hearing, held fifteen months later, after having had the opportunity to see that I, Jason Hogan, was young, had facial hair, and had no physical scars, the husband testified that the robber was in his 20's, had facial hair, and had no scars.
Click her to see Excerpt 17

How is it that the husband who barley caught a glimpse of the perpetrator in passing, who could offer NO description of him in his police report, stated he NEVER saw his face to 911 operator, and NEVER claimed he could ID a suspect in the future; Suddenly 15 months later, described him in more detail than the victim herself, who was in the vehicle with him for 25 minuets?

He claims to have seen him so clearly as to say the robber had facial hair, and no visible scars or marks, while the victim, who initially saw him face to face, who sat next to him for 25 minuets could not say what color his eyes were, if he had facial hair or not, if he had any scars or marks or any other distinctive features, the Only thing she could describe in detail was the tattoo she saw on his hand.  

CLEARLY THIS MAN IS A LIAR, AND HIS TESTIMONY PROVES IT.  

In an effort to strengthen an obvious weak case and secure a conviction, the state used both the victim's husband and mother as "so-called witnesses" to strengthen the victim's questionable identification.  

Two people who identified someone they NEVER SAW, 

for a crime they were NEVER PRESENT for, 

all in en effort to distract and manipulate the jury

to find me guilty of a crime in which

I AM ACTUALLY INNOCENT!