This is a risk in any cross-racial identification, where someone may notice differences from their own ethnic group, but fail to look beyond those features that stand out as "other" in his mind, which makes any person in that racial group a possible suspect. In fact, it is impossible to overplay the role that misidentification has played in so many wrongful convictions. It is difficult for many people to realize that DNA evidence did not play a role in older convictions; the technology simply was not available. Furthermore, when DNA evidence first became available, it was a new technology that was not fully understood by all of the actors in the criminal justice system. In those early times, there were investigators, prosecutors, and fact finders who would believe a credible witness over scientific evidence. Something like this appears to have occurred in James' case. There was a scientific test available that excluded him as a possible suspect, but it was ignored. Furthermore, one must assume either incompetence on the part of James' defense attorney of a failure by the state to provide all exculpatory evidence to the defense, because the jury did not hear that testimony.

It seems like police officers, in addition to victims, are prone to get fixated on a certain perpetrator and just focus on that evidence that would convict that person of the crime, without looking at the totality of the evidence. This was observed by Thomas Golden, a partner at the law firm who represented James. According to Golden, misidentification played a role in 75% of cases that later result in exoneration because of DNA evidence (Innocence Project, 2011). It is possible for the police to influence a victim's perception of potential suspects, so any initial identification, such as lineups, must contain precautions that eliminate the possibility of that type of influence.

An additional factor that makes this case seem so unusual is the fact that this witness knew James prior to being raped. James had helped the...

In addition, when the husband got in a car wreck, James went to the victims' home to inform her that he had been in a wreck and had been arrested. It was after that time that another person entered the home and raped the victim. The fact that the victim knew James' was not explored by the police or really during his trial. That would have been critical information, because she did not immediately identify her assailant, but picked him out in a later identification, only after the police identified him as a suspect. All of this information would have been very helpful to a jury trying to determine the accuracy of the victim's identification of James as her assailant.
Another thing that stands out from reading about James' exoneration is the fact that it may not have happened. The evidence from James' conviction had been misplaced, which is not surprising given that almost three decades had elapsed between the crime and James' release. The evidence was uncovered by chance, when Dureau was looking for evidence in a different case and found the slide from James' case. He happened to recall that he had previously been looking for evidence in James' case. Had Dureau not run across the slide, had he failed to remember it had been the subject of an earlier search, or had he failed to pull the evidence since he was not working on that case at the time, then James would probably have spent the rest of his life in prison, there for a crime that he had not committed. The random nature of his exoneration makes one really wonder how many people who are in prison are there for crimes that they did not commit.