> We need to leave behind eye witness testimony. I do not think there is anything wrong using it, as long as it is explained to a jury that the accuracy of eye

> We need to leave behind eye witness testimony. I do not think there is anything wrong using it, as long as it is explained to a jury that the accuracy of eyewitness testimony is suspect. Similar to how they are told that DNA evidence is ~99.999% accurate, they should be told that eyewitness testimony can often be incorrect (I wouldn't provide a number value though).