Persuasive Speech : An Aspiring Defense Lawyer Essay

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 a hot button issue in not only the criminal justice field but also the psychology field as well. It continues to be argued that this type of “evidence” is far too unreliable for the court room and can ultimately end up punishing the wrong person for a crime they did not commit. The influence of an eyewitness testimony cannot be denied as research has showed that, “adding a single prosecution eyewitness to a murder trial summary increased the percentage of mock jurors’ guilty verdicts from 18 to 72” (Leippe, Manion, & Romanczyk, p. 182, 1992). In the article discussed here, researchers will look into various age groups to see if age has an effect on the credibility of eyewitness testimonies while attempting to discern what certain cues build upon such credibility.

An eyewitness testimony is unreliable because of many different things. Sometimes when witnesses see something they don’t see the whole crime, but only parts which could cause the wrong people to be in trouble. When it’s a serious crime the trial could take years and when asked to stand trial against the perpetrator the witness’s memory could not be fully correct anymore. You could forget important things or get mixed up with things you’ve seen somewhere else, like in a movie. Another reason they are unreliable is Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, like antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at high risk for false identifications by eyewitnesses.

I am sure that everyone of you have heard about aliens and UFOs. Indeed, we all have heard about the famous case of aliens and UFOs in Roswell, New Mexico. Most people might be interested in the topic of aliens, but I know that the majority of you just think of it as rumours and the existence of them are impossible. Therefore, I am standing here in front all of you to make you change your perspective. I am strongly confident that I have found the evidence of their real existence to convince all of you.

Overall, Dr. Fraser’s argument is organized, well structured, and concise, using all three tools of appeal, logos, pathos, and ethos persuading his audience that eyewitness testimony can be seen as invalid. He expresses his argument though story telling, playing a huge role on the logical reasoning, or logos, as well as reasoning abilities. His argument was very effective in getting the audience engaged immediately, using descriptions and visual aids to make it easily understandable to those who are well knowledgeable about the criminal trial process. Dr. Fraser presented his argument in a way that the audience could follow and feel personally involved in. As he states the facts as he became aware of them in the criminal case, Dr. Fraser is in turn, building up to the conclusion of the argument; that eye witness testimony is, at best,

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

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.

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.

It is critical to understand why eyewitness testimony has such a great impact upon jurors’ choice of guilt because many innocent people have gone to jail due to eyewitness testimony. It is speculated that male and female jury members weigh guilt differently. This study hypothesizes there will be a measured difference between the independent factors, gender and type of eyewitness and the dependent variable, level of guilt. In this experiment the eyewitness type is: ‘no eyewitness,’ ‘unrefuted eyewitness,’ or ‘discredited eyewitness.’ The controlled condition is the level of guilt assigned by the participant after hearing details of a crime. The results supported the hypothesis. There were significant differences between the gender and eyewitness types when assigning levels of guilt. Female participants rated higher levels of guilt overall while both genders rated higher levels of guilt to the unrefuted eyewitness group over the other eyewitness types, which shown similar measures.

There are numerous factors in a courtroom trial that can significantly affect the verdict reached by jurors and can potentially influence whether the perpetrator of crime is ultimately convicted or is acquitted. In this essay I will explore several of these factors including how the personal characteristics of the defendant (e.g. attractiveness, gender and race) persuasion techniques (e.g. order of testimony) and jury characteristics can determine the conviction of a criminal.

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:

Jury trials in the United States Criminal Justice system often evolve many key elements to ensure a fair and just trial. One fundamental component that ensuring the integrity of a trial is a jury. It is the jury’s job to process though vast amounts of information to determine whether they convict or acquit a defendant of any and all charges. Typically, it is assumed that jurors will make their decision solely based on in information presented in court, not what’s presented in the media or points irreverent to the case. However, this assumption may not always hold true as it is possible for other factors to skew and fog a Jury’s finial decision.

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.