Commentators in Britain, the United States, and Australia have documented many cases of false identification that have led to wrongful convictions. The reason for this is that not only does this type of evidence have a profound impact, but it is also inherently unreliable. The human observer is influenced by a variety of environmental stimuli, and, because of this, accurate recall can be distorted at the time of perception, during retention, and during retrieval. Given the inherent unreliability of this type of testimony, legal scholars, governmental commissions, and the courts have attempted to develop a set of principles for use in the judicial process in order to prevent the occurrence of such miscarriages of justice. The courts have long recognized that witnesses should be asked to identify a suspect or an accused at the earliest opportunity and under the fairest of circumstances. One of the most important methods used to establish the identity of the perpetrator of a crime is the analysis of physiological and biological material. This material is either unique to the individual or is at least capable of excluding a vast portion of the general public as possible donors.