Eyewitness Evidence Analysis

The human mind can be a very important tool, but it can also be highly flawed. The mind can remember an extensive amount of information. However, it can make people think things happened that never truly happened. Eyewitness testimony has always played an important role as evidence in the courts system. Juries on a trial tend to believe eyewitness testimony over any other evidence, even if other evidence differs from the eyewitness testimony. When little other evidence is presented, eyewitness testimony tends to be the primary focus. Many wrongful convictions have occurred due to these false eyewitness statements. According to George Vallas, in “A survey of Federal and State Standards for the Admission of Expert Testimony on the

Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.

In Canada, the leading cause of wrongful conviction is due to the factor of eyewitness account. It has been proven that individual’s minds are not like tape recorders because everyone cannot precisely and accurately remember the description of what another person or object looks like. The courts looks at eyewitness accounts as a great factor to nab perpetrators because they believe that the witness should know what they are taking about and seen what occurred on the crime scene. On the other hand, eyewitness accounts lead to a 70 percent chance of wrongful conviction, where witnesses would substantially change their description of a perpetrator.

Eyewitness misidentification can pose a serious threat in forensic evidence. Eye witness testimony can easily be tampered with due to words or phrases used. Bias is a major issue in identification especially if the police officer uses suggestive tones to portray whom they believe is the suspect. Some witnesses will change their opinion when they hear new information of the suspect. A study has shown that words can play a major impact in the witness' mind and cause them to recall false information. False information can also stem from human memory, age, distance, and how long it took before a witness could recall the information. It has been shown that due to the confidence that a witness may have, it could impact the court systems' reliability on the witness; however, there are several solutions that can be done to prevent misidentification in the court of law. Some examples that can be done are blind administration, lineup composition, instructions, confidence statements, and

In eyewitness identification, in criminal law, evidence is received from a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court.” (Law.com Legal Online Dictionary) While this could be an important piece of the investigation, it can never take the place of DNA, or forensic evidence. Unfortunately, that happens all too much, with our overburdened legal and criminal justice systems. “Eyewitness misidentification is widely recognized as the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the U.S., accounting for more wrongful convictions than all other cause combined.” (Boston College Journal of Law and Social Justice, Volume 35:1, p.2) While we have been aware of this problem for many years, innocent people are still being convicted daily. Too many people

Wrongful conviction is a problem that the US and other countries. The individual are saved from death row when new evidence arrives or when evidence that was provided is proved to be false. Judges have always been expected to decipher and correctly judge every case, specifically pertaining to criminal acts. The expectations derive from the nature of individuals ' lives being in the hands of the judgment of the particular judge. Research on cases has revealed particular circumstances far too often seen in cases of wrongful conviction. These cases show us how the criminal justice system is in need of much repair. Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene, false confessions in many cases, innocent defendants make incriminating statements, deliver outright confessions, or plead guilty. Government misconduct is when government officials take steps to ensure that a defendant is convicted even with weak evidence or clear proof of innocence. Bad lawyering is the failure of overworked lawyers to investigate, call a witness, or prepare for trial has led to the conviction of innocent people. These factors are some of the causes of wrongful convictions.

Reveal Topic: Eyewitness identification Credibility: According to californiainnocenceproject.org one huge factor in wrongful convictions is

The research question of the experiment was if there was an effect of a discredited eyewitness on jurors’ verdicts. During this study, we were replicating and testing the participants that were asked to assume the role of a juror as they read three scenarios and if there was effects of a discredited eyewitness on a juror’s verdicts. For suspicious individuals, they are discredited eyewitness jurors and may react as well as being less likely to convict. For naive people, it didn’t matter, the jurors were still convicting, as well as ignoring the fact that it is very powerful to say “I saw this”. The results of this experimental study were almost exact to what the class as well as myself

Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.

Explain what study design is employed here? Do you agree or disagree with the study design? Explain why?

Today’s legal system is set up to try and prevent mistakes as much as possible as not to arrest or convict innocent people (Bohm and Haley, 2014.) As the population in the United States grows, crime grows, and limited space in our correction facilities grow, I believe that some would think the miscarriages of justice will rise. I think that we now have the tools and technology available to us to reduce the number of false convictions. If the justice system uses the available technology today correctly, then there should be no reason why the statistics of false convictions should not decrease even if the population and crime increase. Most of the miscarriages of justice are due to misidentification from eyewitnesses and misrepresentation.

A juror watches a trial and determines which team to choose decided by witness honesty. The article, Juries and Witnesses, emphasizes the effect of witness testimony on jurors’: “jurors have been found to place more emphasis on eyewitness testimony than on any other kind of evidence (Laub),” because eyewitness testimony enables jurors to make quick decisions, and avoid uncertainty, as a viewer of a debate team dislikes the feeling of uncertainty and wants to come to conclusions quickly. After jurors make initial theories, they search for evidence to back it up (Finkelman). The eyewitness puts the jurors at ease, through helping the jurors reach certainty quickly. Jurors use a top-down approach when investigating a case, as it further helps

If it were replicated on a larger scale, it could deliver some important data. It would help courts determine whether an eyewitness account is trustworthy depending on the time since the event. Plus, findings like the ones this study was designed to produce could overall reduce the number of wrongly convicted people who fell victim to unsound evidence. Eyewitness accounts are a crucial part of the criminal justice system, and although this experiment can’t give large-scale results, it’s important that other studies like this take place in the

Scholars and practitioners alike share a widespread belief that the single greatest cause of wrongful conviction is because of an eyewitness testimony. April 23, 2007, marked the 200th criminal conviction exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States of America. According to www.innocenceproject.org, over 75% of the 200 criminal cases revealed to be wrongful convictions involved a faulty eyewitness testimony. Collectively, these 200 people spent a total of 2,475 years in prison. With factors such as witness memory, dependability, deception, and the outside influences one may encounter, psychologists and practitioners have begun to dispute whether or not an eyewitness is credible and therefore should be used in a legal court

In the recent proposal for reform in the admission of expert evidence, The Law Commission for England and Wales observed that the “the common law approach to the admissibility of expert opinion evidence is one of laissez-faire, with such evidence being admitted without sufficient regard to whether or not it is sufficiently reliable to be considered by a jury” (Akers, 2000). According to the Commission, this approach is unsatisfactory and recommended that the admissibility of expert evidence should be considered in the criminal investigation only if (1) it is provided beyond reasonable doubt that the person who is called upon as an expert witness is skilled, experienced and qualified to give such evidence or testimonies and (2) the court should properly scrutinize the expert evidence to ensure it contains scientific principles which are admissible to the court and to the case in question. Under the proposal of the commission, evidence, opinion or testimony over a crime will only be admitted if the strength of the evidence is soundly based. For example, the experts evidence would not be admitted in the court of law if (a) it is based on flawed data, (b) it is based on an unjustifiable assumption, (c)