Eyewitness And Meta-Analysis

Decent Essays

2.2 million people are currently incarcerated. A little over 1% of those people are on death row. Those 2,900 people are set to die because they have been convicted of a heinous crime by a jury of their peers who found their guilt to be beyond a reasonable doubt. A study which polls jurors found that eyewitness testimony is the most compelling evidence which leads a jury to convict (Kerr). But researchers and lawyers can attest that not all 2.2 million people who are currently incarcerated are guilty (Innocence). In some percentage of these cases, the eyewitnesses testifying must have been wrong.
Recently, I went to the Equal Justice Initiative annual dinner. Its founder, Bryan Stevenson, a social justice icon and lawyer, hosted the annual …show more content…

A meta-analysis conducted by (meta-analysis is the statistical procedure for combining data from multiple studies. When the treatment effect, or effect size, is consistent from one study to the next, meta-analysis can be used to identify this common effect, according to Peter N. Shapiro & Steven Penrod (professors at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice), established that females may be more likely to make accurate identifications than males. Males and females may take an interest in different aspects of a scene and thereby remember somewhat different details (Meta).
The age of the eyewitness, on the other hand, is often connected to their eyewitness identification performance. Very young children and the elderly tend to perform significantly worse than younger adults. For example, if there was a lineup containing the actual felon, young children and the elderly tend to perform practically as well as the young adults in identifying the felon, but when the lineup does not contain the felon the young children and the elderly tend to make a mistaken identification at a higher rate than the young adults would (Meta). This is very interesting because this is clearly a variable a person can’t …show more content…

ZIEGLER WILLIAM JOHN. The testimony of Vickie Bosarge at William Ziegler’s trial suggests that eyewitness testimony should not be the determiner. At William Ziegler’s trial, Vickie Bosarge had testified that Baker (the victim) and the defendant, William Ziegler among some others, were at her house on February 18, 2000. The Court of Criminal Appeals relied on Vickie Bosarge’s testimony in affirming William Ziegler’s conviction, stating that Borsarge’s testimony “corroborated testimony as to Ziegler’s supposed intent to kill Baker” (The State). At a later hearing, however, Bosarge renounced her prior trial testimony and testified that William Ziegler was not at her house the night of the murder and that he never threatened Baker (the victim) that night. (Other witnesses also testified that Ziegler was not present.) Bosarge explained how she came to misidentify William Ziegler as having threatened Baker. Specifically, Bosarge testified that when law enforcement contacted her, she was “confused” because Ziegler and Randall (another defendant) are both named William. She pointed out to law enforcement that she didn’t know the name of the person she saw at her house. According to Bosarge, “they kept saying Will and Willy, Will and Willy, Will and Willy, Will and Willy. I mean I’m going who is Will and who is Willy and what are you talking about, I don’t even know what you’re talking about.” Her

Get Access