On August 7th, 1997 in Metairie, Louisiana, a woman was sexually assaulted with her dress ripped off in the parking lot of her apartment complex.  Police immediately went and questioned 23-year-old Nathan Brown who lived in the apartment complex as he was black which fit her description.  Upon questioning him and bringing him forth to the victim, she immediately confirmed that he was the attacker and so he was arrested and investigation and trial proceedings would follow.

 

Some of the evidence used against Brown during the identification was that he had the letters “L-L-E” tattooed on his chest which was true and that he had a very strong body odor which the victim viewed as Brown because he had just showered before being questioned.  What is important to note, however, is that the tattoo was not disclosed until after Brown had been brought to the victim.  

 

Within a single day of the trial, Brown was convicted of the crime and sent to jail.

 

As time went on Brown continued to appeal and with DNA testing and advancements to technology, tests were done on DNA from the dress.  This DNA, found in multiple places on the dress as well as in the form of saliva on the shoulder, matched another man who was already in prison for a separate crime and who was 17 at the time of the attack living nearby the complex.  With this information, as well as the reviewed case showing that his lawyer failed to mention his legal blindness that would have made the attack nearly impossible for him to complete in the way it was described and additional holes such as the marks that would have been on Brown’s body from the struggle of the woman were not there and his heart rate that was tested less than an hour after the attack was not as high as it would have been expected or the fact that he had four alibis confirming his location during the attack, Brown was released.

 

But how did this happen in the first place?  This case highlights how easy it is for a witness and even a victim of a crime to misidentify who their attacker would be and let outside factors influence their identification.  Of course, the woman that was attacked did not mean to misidentify Mr. Brown but with the way police brought him to her and presented him as the main suspect and only reasonable option, she fully convinced herself that he was indeed her attacker.  This incorrect identification happened only about half an hour after the attack.  This case happened as a result of eyewitness misidentification and shows that evidence needs to be looked at and reviewed and with cases like these proving the shortcomings of identification, it is important to review the identification process in order to prevent mistakes like these from causing people to go to prison.

​