Legally blind is not the same thing as being totally blind. My brother is “legally blind” but he can see well enough to read and drive a car. Still you have to wonder why the court didn’t take this into consideration at the time - what was motivating the judge to overlook this fact and allow this man to be incarcerated on the basis of flawed eyewitness testimony? Someone had this court’s short hairs in their grips.
The article says that the witness said that he was much closer than the cameras on site showed he actually was.
Also in the article, there’s the issue that CPD told others to identify Harris or else. One of them already recanted their statements.
So what does it means “Legally blind” if he can drive and read? What’s the threshold to be considered legally blind?
Found this definition;
In the United States, legal blindness means your central visual acuity—the part of your vision that allows you to see straight ahead—is 20/200 or less in your better eye when wearing corrective lenses. With 20/200 vision, you can see at 20 feet what a person with 20/20 vision sees at 200 feet. Or, your 20-degree field allows for seeing only right in front of you.
You can be legally blind with tunnel vision, i.e. you can see directly ahead, but nothing out of the corner of your eye.
Blind eyewitness? I see.
You might, but they don’t. I think that was the problem.
That’s an extremely shortsighted view.
