Take a close look at the case of R. v. Favel (2019). Read the decision carefully (see file labelled R. v.Favel on Brightspace). Meyyappan Visawanathan witnessed an accident while travelling

to work on the morning of January 29, 2019. When he pulled over to offer assistance, an unidentified man ran from the crashed vehicle and jumped into his car. After getting into Visawanathan's vehicle, the man put his hands around Visawanathan's neck and forced him to drive around Northwest Calgary for approximately 20-30 minutes. He told Visawanathan that if he called the police he would "come for him". He demanded money from Visawanathan who complied and gave him $100 and a pair of leather gloves. Subsequently, Clifford Favel was charged with unlawful confinement and robbery. The issue in this case is whether Visawanathan correctly identified Favel as the culprit. The present case examines the reliability of eyewitness evidence to determine whether the Favel was the man who car jacked Mr. Visawanathan. Take a look at the decision provided by Judge Semenuk. Notice how Justice Semenuk reviews the evidence and related law. Notice how he provides a rationale for his decision on each of the elements of the charges. Suppose Judge Semenuk phones you up today. He knows you are a student in psychology and law who is knowledgeable of the scientific literature regarding eyewitness evidence. In conversation, Justice Semenuk asks you what you think of his ruling in the Favel case. “From a psychological perspective, did I get it right?", he asks you. "What should I have known before making each of these decisions?", he adds. Judge Semenuk asks you to provide him with a scientifically-grounded commentary on the psychological issues in the Favel case. What is your opinion of the evidence from Mr. Visawanathan and his ability to see Mr. Favel?What about his lineup identification? Your job is to write Judge Semenuk a friendly letter that shares your knowledge of the relevant scientific literature relating to the case (i.e., Dear Judge Semenuk...). You should focus on the eyewitness identification evidence. There may be reasoning or positions that he took that you agree with (tell him what you agree with,explain why you agree, and justify your position with evidence/information from the psychological science you learned about in the course). You might also find that he needed more information from the literature – maybe the information might have led to a different decision. For example, you might point out research that he should have considered in the decision (maybe if he did, he might have ruled differently?). Did he express ideas about that contradict the scientific literature? Or is he on track with what we know about these issues? In other words,write him a letter where you provide some advice/suggestions grounded in what you know and learned about eyewitness evidence and the factors that affect accuracy. The point is for you to display your knowledge of the relevant psychological literature as it applies to the case by teaching the judge what you know about the area. To prepare your letter to Judge Semenuk, you will need to apply what you learned in the course readings on eyewitness evidence to this case. Do not go beyond the course materials. Your grade will depend on how well you describe the psychological research and findings in relation to this case. Be sure you cite your sources within the paper (APA style). You may cite the online module like this: ...(Stinson Module 2, 2020).