Examples Of False Identification

Eyewitness identification are considered to be the most powerful evidence against a suspect. There are numerous reasons for this to occur which includes stress, human memory, and the focus on weapons which leads for the eyewitness to focus less on the perpetrator. When an individual is in a position with high stress, their ability of remembering what actually occurred won't be easy to prove. It leaves the eyewitness unable to recall what occurred at the tie of the scene. This has been a huge problem over the years. According to “Carla Stenzel” eyewitness misidentification will occur because our memory is dynamic. It is very impossible for our brains to perform everything we see. Our memories take in pieces of information and processes the most important information. When a witness is asked by a police officer to give certain details of a suspect, they won't be able to remember how exactly they looked like but will be able to give out certain details like their height, race, and hair color. When a crime is being committed witnesses usually testify that there focus was more on the perpetrator's weapon. All they can focus on would be the size and shape of the weapon and focus less on the actual suspect. Another contribution would be the way the investigator presents the operator to the witness. The investigator prepares a lineup which includes a six pack of people. The use of a six pack lineup has

According to “The Science Behind Eyewitness Identification Reform” there are two main variables that affect eyewitness testimonies “Estimator variables: are those that cannot be controlled by the criminal justice system. They include simple factors like the lighting when the crime took place or the distance from which the witness saw the perpetrator, and the degree of stress or trauma a witness experienced while seeing the perpetrator” and “System variables: are those that the criminal justice system can and should control. They include all of the ways that law enforcement agencies retrieve and record witness memory, such as lineups, photo arrays, and other identification procedures”. Eyewitness misidentification has led to 75% of false convictions that were overruled by modern DNA testing according to “The Innocence

A witness or victim can make an identification through a prospective suspect by the use of a collection of photographs. Photograph sessions are usually used more than lineups. A defendant does not have a right to counsel at a photograph identification session. This reasoning was determined by the “Supreme Court”, and any time during the course of the trial (Hall, 2015). As stated by Hall (2015), “In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967), the Supreme Court found that the Due Process clauses of

Eyewitness identifications is a noteworthy topic. Victims see their attackers from time to time, but

Previous research has provided evidence that there is a rather frequent occurrence of false identifications of innocent people in line-ups (Lindsay, Wells, Rumpel, & Campbell, 1981). Eyewitness memories are often distorted by inaccurate memories of how accurate their original identification was (Wells & Bradfield, 1998). Often the eyewitness will be unsure at the time of the line-up identification, but when recalling the identification process they often give a confident positive response (Wells & Bradfield, 1998). A confirming-feedback comment can have a pronounced effect on the reconstructing of the witnessing and identification process. The comment may not only inflate recollections but also have an impact on the eyewitness confidence (Wells

Despite thorough research supporting the dangers of eyewitness testimony, and the constant press by the American Psychological Association (APA) and different law, psychology, and forensics experts, there are no national guidelines conducting how law enforcement agencies gather eyewitness identifications. In an APA brief, suggested by researchers and the Innocence Project, sent to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it discussed how juries often don’t understand the factors that can influence a witness’ ability to accurately identify a suspect. Such factors include how much stress a witness is under,

According to the Innocence Project, the misidentification of eyewitness is the most common causes of wrongful conviction in which approximately 75% of the cases has been overturned because of this case. There are several causes of eyewitness misidentification, which includes the types of lineup, post-identification feedback effect, and does the instructions given. The lineup is a process which the suspect is identified by the witness as the perpetrator. The main reason that the

Although it is difficult to distinguish between a correct and mistaken identification, the risk of a wrongful conviction appears fallible. With the aid of forensic science, improvements in training procedures and education on law are proven to decrease the chances for misidentification. Along with the reliance on eyewitness evidence, attorneys should consider all possible factors of reducing wrongful convictions, even if it requires the opinions

The police officer bringing the detained man fitting the description of a robbery that just occurred back to the scene in order for the cashier to identify him would be a showup. The one man show up occurred almost directly after the offense had been committed. This is more suggestive than a lineup. (2015) I have never personally been apart of a lineup or conducted one. However, I have conducted several showups. I was able to locate a suspect of felony vandalism and criminal trespass thanks to the eye witness testimony. I was able to bring him back to the scene of where the offense had taken place within thirty minutes and the witness was able to identify him as the suspect. Not to mention, as I have stated previously the cameras in the store

Very interesting post. Misidentification of citizens is the most troubling mode of identification of a possible suspect. For an example, an incident occurred in Richmond, Va, is an example of police lineups going wrong. Michael Kenneth McAlister, 58 was convicted of the February 1986, abduction and attempted rape of a woman who was dragged at knifepoint from an apartment complex laundry room in Richmond.

A witness in a rape case was shown a photo array where only one photo of the person police suspected was the perpetrator was marked with an “R.” Witnesses substantially changed their description of a perpetrator (including key information such as height, weight and presence of facial hair) after they learned more about a particular suspect. Witnesses only made an identification after multiple photo arrays or lineups — and then made hesitant identifications (saying they “thought” the person “might be” the perpetrator, for example), but at trial the jury was told the witnesses did not waver in identifying the suspect (Grisham 1992).

In a world full of millions of crimes, it is always a difficult and challenging task attempting to properly identify every single individual who can be related to a specific criminal case, quickly and efficiently. When a crime is reported, a criminalist’s job is to work as hard as they can with a team of other criminalists to gather all of the important information related to that specific case, and as all of the research occurs, questions such as “Were there any witnesses?” or “Is there any blood evidence?” will be asked during the process of finding every little piece of evidence to put the puzzle together and come to a conclusion on the case. Several other questions may be asked such as, “Who is innocent?” or “Who is guilty?” after

Important differences in memories or mental processing of the significant features of the witnessing an incident or involvement include but not limited to: their self-confidence level at the time they identified the suspect, how good a view they had of the incident, their capability to make out a facial feature, the comfort of making an identification, and did they have a good foundation of enough material to make their conclusion.

Persuasion has the ability to shape the world in which we live. However, while this concept is extremely powerful, it is also extremely difficult to use on a large scale. A larger audience brings forth diverse backgrounds, making it challenging to create a connection between each audience member and the orator of the proposed idea. Nonetheless, in spite of the difficult circumstances presented by a large audience, history has exemplified that great persuaders are able to overcome these differences, and still present a common identity in order to help convince that audience. John F. Kennedy quintessentially illustrates this concept through his speech to the people of West Berlin in 1963, where he uses

Two hypotheses were presented in this article. Both of them focus on how unfair lineups are more likely to cause witnesses to make false accusations about who actually committed the crime. Does the lineup cause subjects to