The witness was allegedly suffering from advanced glaucoma at the time of the crime, severely limiting visibility. Surveillance video from the scene also revealed the eyewitness was much farther away than he initially claimed to be, according to the Exoneration Project.
Majority of eyewitness testimony is inaccurate. That alone should never have been enough to convict, much less from someone with legitimately terrible eyesight.
I agree, I mean given that the eye witness wasn’t even that close to see what happened, that should have raised flags about the veracity of what said they saw. And having a vision problem complicates it even further. Being legally blind doesn’t mean you necessarily can’t see what’s happening, but it should put your testimony under further scrutiny.