Eyewitness Testimony as a Source of Reliable Evidence

Eyewitness evidence has always been considering critical information when it comes to court trials and convictions. But how reliable are eyewitnesses? Scientific research has shown that eyewitness’s memories are often not accurate or reliable. Human memory is very malleable and is easily changed by suggestion. Relying on eyewitness evidence instead of scientific data often leads to wrongful convictions. Scientific evidence is much more reliable, and should be more important in court cases than eyewitness evidence.

In a United States courtroom, evidence is king. There are all different kinds of evidence that can be brought into court, and these types of evidence are statistical, anecdotal, analogical, and testimony. Testimony is defined by Merriam Webster dictionary as “something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth” (2014). During a trial, testimony is heard supporting both sides of the court, the prosecution and defense. Though some of that testimony is based on hard facts, or expert testimony (deemed an expert by the judge), some of it can be easily misconstrued, and some can be undeniable (such as expert testimony in relation to hard evidence such as DNA). But there remains one type of testimony that carries an unprecedented weight in a courtroom, and that is eyewitness testimony. Some of the problems associated with eyewitness testimony are that is it unreliable, and it is leading or suggestive to a jury. In this paper I am going to address these issues as well as explore some ethical issues around eyewitness testimony, how it can effect the presumption of guilt, and who should have the burden of proof under certain circumstances.

Eyewitness testimony is generally seen as reliable, but as of lately research has found psychological factors that affect one’s testimony. They are anxiety/stress, reconstructive memory, and leading questions. A study was conducted on the impact of anxiety and life stress upon eyewitness testimony; subjects completed self-reports, an eyewitness task, and a self-preoccupation scale to determine the relationship. Results showed that anxiety and preoccupation limits the eyewitness’s ability to perform; a highly anxious individual may miss important cues that are task-relevant (Seigel & Loftus 1978). Other cognitive processes like perception, imagination, and semantic memory influence reconstructive memory the act of remembering. Bartlett’s theory of reconstructive memory is understood that an eyewitness testimony is influenced by what is learned or cultural norms. We store information in a way that makes the most sense to us, organizing information into schemas, mental units of knowledge that correspond to people, objects, or situations that are close to us (Wagoner 2013). When in a police interrogation, leading questions can provide misinformation that causes the witness to question everything they saw and whether or not they are saying the right thing. A study was conducted on a number of subjects that saw a complex and fast moving event. They immediately after were asked questions that suggested information that was necessarily correct due to the wording of the question (Loftus

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.

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.

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.

As time goes on, eyewitness testimony has become more and more of a disputed topic due to many different factors. The first study I was exposed to was in an introductory psychology class which sparked my interest into the topic. For this reason, I chose to look at different demographics such as, gender and major, and see if those factors had any impact on the perception of eyewitness testimony. My main issues remained the same throughout this research project.

Eyewitnesses are critical to the criminal justice system, but there have been issues involving eyewitness testimonies, which occasionally cause them to be seen as unreliable. According to innocenceproject.org, 72% of DNA exoneration cases in the United States have resulted from eyewitness misidentification. This is concerning because in a study by Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, and Bradshaw (2005), they examined jurors, judges and law enforcement’s knowledge about eyewitness issues. They found that those involved in the legal system are still very unaware of eyewitness memory research, and the reasons behind why eyewitnesses may or may not be considered reliable. There needs to be a way to increase reliability so that eyewitnesses are able to accurately recognize perpetrators and other important information to put the guilty people away, and to keep the innocent people free.

Have you ever been a witness to a crime? Would you feel comfortable if prosecutors relied on your eye witness testimony alone for a conviction? According to “The Magic of the Mind”, eyewitness testimony which relies on the accuracy of human memory, has an enormous impact on the outcome of a trial. Eyewitness testimony is a legal term. During an eyewitness testimony, the witness usually goes into an account of the crime he or she has witnessed. This can include details of the crime or identification of perpetrators. Eyewitness testimony is an important area of research in cognitive psychology and human memory (simplypsychology.com). Eyewitness testimony can be affected by many psychological factors such as:

There are many different factors that play a part in the increased chance of a witness correctly identifying a suspect. Such factors should be brought to the attention of the jury and the judge to help in properly assessing whether a witness is correctly identifying a suspect. A study by Magnussen, Melinder, Stridbeck, & Raja (2010) found that of the three different types of people: judge, jury, and general public, that for the most part all where fairly ill-informed on the reliability of eyewitness testimony with judges having the most. Judges only had about an 8% difference in knowledge when compared to jurors. With this information it is very clear that education on the reliability of eyewitness testimony needs to become more of a general knowledge information for the everyone, especially people who are involved in upholding the law. Another factor to look into when evaluating the accuracy eyewitness testimony is the role that memory plays. Memory is divided into three processes: perceiving, remembering, and recalling information (Simmonsen, 2013). There is plenty of room in all three of those stages to forget or falsely remember something. Some factors that play a part when a person perceives an event is the amount of time they are exposed to the event and the suspect. A study conducted by Horry, Halford, Brewer, Milne, & Bull. (2014) found that witnesses were increasingly more likely to correctly identify a suspect if they had been exposed to the suspect for sixty

Eyewitness testimony is not a reliable source of honest information for a number of serious yet often overlooked

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.

A specific process of which we must doubt the reliability of is the role of memory in eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is used as vital evidence in the legal system in order to convict criminals, however, it does rely on the reliability of memory, which has been a highly contested topic. Previously, eyewitness testimony has been a highly reliable source in the conviction process. It was trusted by courts of law and law enforcement, however, various research studies have now created reasonable doubt behind the reliability of these testimonies due to the fact that it is now evident that memory can be distorted and reconstructed, an active process in which information

Some people argue that eyewitness testimonies are the key to solving a crime. These testimonies help investigators find out what truly happened when the crime was committed. “This helps the jury and the lawyers better understand everything about the case as the eyewitness testimony explains how the crime was committed, who was involved and where it happened. As a result, a motive could be established based on the witness’ account of the story. Consequently, it will help the judge come up with the best decision in the end”(8 Predominant). This supports the idea that these testimonies

Eyewitness memory has always been an essential aspect of any trial. The perpetrator’s fate relies on the ability of the witness to accurately identify the person who committed the crime, and the events that occurred. People like to think that their memory can serve like a video camera that will record the events. Then, when they need to recall it, they can simply play it back to remember each detail. However, psychologists have found that this is simply not true. Remembering is found to be an act of putting a puzzle together, rather than a video recording of the events. In remembering, people are reconstructing memories. When doing this, an investigator with leading questions can modify events because the memory fragments can be combined with