Eyewitness Testimony And Its Impact On The Outcome Of A Trial

The most vicious cause of wrongful conviction is eyewitness misidentification. According to the Innocence Project, 72% of overturned wrongful convictions through DNA testing were due to eyewitness misidentification1. As this statistics implies, eyewitness identification (Eye-ID) is untrustworthy information. The main reason why Eye-ID lacks accuracy is due to malleability of memories. The Innocence Project asserts there are two variables greatly influence memory and also Eye-ID. One type of variables is “estimator variables” which are incontrollable factors by the criminal justice system. Examples of estimator variables are environmental factors (e.g., lighting and distance) when the crime occurred, racial factors, and psychological factors (e.g., severity of trauma)1. The other type of variable is “system variables” which is controllable by the criminal justice system. These variables are within the procedure of attaining evidences. For instance, post-identification feedback (e.g., confirming feedback that an eyewitness receives), biased lineup/ photo array composition, biased administrators of lineup can negatively influences Eye-ID.

In order to comprehend the contribution of psychology to areas of criminal investigation it is important to evaluate research into two of the following areas of criminal investigation: eye witness testimony and offender profiling as well as assess the implications of the findings in the area of criminal investigation. In addition, this essay, with reference to relevant psychological research, discuss how the characteristics of the defendant may influence jury behaviour as well as analyse two psychological influences on the decision making process of juries. In order to improve the efficiency of detection and successful prosecution of crime it is important to underline that in a previous administration, detection of serious crime was poor and eyewitness testimony appeared very unreliable, partly due to standard interview techniques yielding confusing results. It is therefore this essays primary focus is to provide the chief constable with a report explaining how psychologists might be able to improve this situation with a full evaluation of process and evidence.

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

There has been considerable interest and study in the accuracy or inaccuracy of the use of eyewitness testimonies in the current criminal justice system. Results collated by several studies add to the bulk of literature suggesting that the current usage of eyewitness testimony by the legal system is far from ideal. Currently, high emphasis is being placed on reviewing and reconsidering eyewitness accounts (Leinfelt, 2004). In particular, recent DNA exoneration cases have substantiated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of innocent people (Wells & Olson, 2003). In this essay, the use of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system will be explored, with a particular focus on the impreciseness of this practice.

Factors such as misinformation and eyewitness talk can easily affect the memory of eyewitnesses and therefore affect their testimony_. Evidence which is usually provided during eyewitness memory reports helps to determine the guilt or innocence of a perpetrator in a criminal proceeding_. With the help of many basic psychological and neuroscience studies, it has been indicated that because memory is a reconstructive process it is likely to be influenced and vulnerable to change and misinformation_. Due to memory being vulnerable, any minor memory misrepresentation can have severe consequences when used in the courtroom_. Memory errors when regarding the identification of a perpetrator of a specific crime has been focused on during research

An eye witness is a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first hand description of it. Every year, more than 75,000 eyewitnesses recognize criminal suspects in the U.S., and studies propose that as many as a third of them are wrong. Mistaken eyewitnesses helped convict three quarters of the people who have been freed from U.S. prisons base on DNA evidence presented by the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project is a nonprofit legal organization that challenges uncertain prosecutions. The California Innocence Project says that they are numerous reasons why eyewitness are mostly wrong. They are High Stress Environment and Trauma, Human Memory, and Suggestive Identification and etc. There are all these reasons that eyewitnesses have a high rate of error but, are still considered some of the most powerful evidence against a suspect. After a comprehensive two-year study of eyewitness testimonies, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that they often leads to fictional or false identifications. Thus, recently ordered that new rules on how such testimonies are treated in the courtroom. This is

Although eyewitness testimony can be significant when displaying it to a judge or a jury, years of supportive social science research has sustained that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. As the Innocence Project website illustrates, studies show that the human mind is nowhere near like a ‘tape recorder’ and we as humans do not record events exactly as we see them. Instead, witness recollection is just like any other evidence at a crime scene and must be preserved carefully and sensibly retrieved or it can be considered as contaminated.

Based on those experiments, Loftus affirms the inaccuracy of our memory, events may be reconstructed with new information added. Applying those results into criminal investigations based on eyewitness, Loftus pointed out that witness is questioned often more than once. Also, studies have demonstrated that line-up might be a inefficient way of point a suspect since many faces are introduced to the witness. In addition to eyewitness testimony, Loftus is leading also in repressed childhood memory. Most of her experiments demonstrated that repressed childhood memories do not exist. In fact, the most traumatic memories that we experience are the ones that we tend to not forget

As technology becomes more readily available within the criminal justice fields, we are finding more options and ways to collect evidence. With these new techniques proving old truths wrong time and time again, it is hard to believe the more old-school ways of prosecuting and judging criminals and their crimes. Since biblical times, eyewitness testimonies have been a key provider of evidence in trials, but will more technically advanced ways of collecting hard evidence begin to overtake its place? Should eyewitness testimonies be used in trial in the first place? In order to truly evaluate this question, it is important to look at the statistics surrounding the negative impacts of possibly false eyewitness testimonies and understand which situations

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.

The lawyer would use their specific tactics of negotiation and sometimes fear to get into the mind of the eyewitness, therefore causing the eyewitness to experience errors in their memory while on the stand during a heavy trial. Moveover, the significant errors that can occur during these important moments that the eyewitness tries to recall the memories of their horrific and/or pleasant memories can be either forgotten or interpreted in an entirely different way or tone. Therefore giving the lawyer an opportunity to attack with questions of curiosity and the need for justice. The problem with eyewitnesses in court can be sometimes the person is not being fully trustworthy and honest, while being questioned on the stand, and their memory can

There has been great controversy about utilizing eyewitness identification in courts as a reliable method of conviction. However, police officers, investigators, prosecutors, and the courts often rely on eyewitness identification and testimonies to prosecute criminals. Records show that eyewitness identification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions of criminals. More than 73% of more than 200 wrongful convictions in the United States have been overturned, and one third of these cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. I believe that eyewitness identification is not a reliable way of conviction because of the many different problems with memory such as reconstructive

The data gathered from this research should have us question the validity and accuracy of the human memory. Although, we want to believe our memories are exact representations of an important event it is susceptible to false details and sometimes even completely distorted. Using eye witness testimony in the American court system seems unfair to its American citizens. When eye witness testimonies result in wrongly convicting someone the American court system failed the initial victim and created another victim in the process while the true criminal is still at large likely still committing crimes. The victim deserves justice and the wrongly accused do as well. American citizens should have confidence in its court system to keep them safe by correctly convicting another of a crime.

Juries tend to pay close attention to eyewitness testimony and generally find it a reliable source of information. However, research into this area has found that eyewitness testimony can be affected by many psychological factors.

Dear James Blackburn, thank you for contacting me with your case. As an expert witness, I am more than happy to assist you in the examination of the prosecution witness’ evidence and account of the incident. Firstly, we must consider any confounding factors that may have influenced the witness’ memory and therefore influencing their testimony. Some factors we must consider are; cross-race effect (CRE), weapon focus effect, own age bias (OAB) and the bystander effect. I will attempt to aid you in this case by referring to information and knowledge that has been provided and highlighted by previous research. These factors must be deliberated in regards to the validity and credibility of the witness’s statement. Nonetheless, I will provide as much information I can to help with your client’s case.