The Innocence Of Eyewitness Testimony

This paper explores deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) collection and its relationship to solving crimes. The collection of DNA is one of the most important steps in identifying a suspect in a crime. DNA evidence can either convict or exonerate an individual of a crime. Furthermore, the accuracy of forensic identification of evidence has the possibility of leaving biased effects on a juror (Carrell, Krauss, Liberman, Miethe, 2008). This paper examines Carrells et al’s research along with three other research articles to review how DNA is collected, the effects that is has on a juror and the pros and cons of DNA collection in the Forensic Science and Criminal Justice community.

Eyewitness testimony has long been viewed as important evidence in court cases. The general population believes eyewitness identification more than any other evidence, even if the witness account is conflicting with the other evidence presented. Studies show that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and yet it is still considered the most important form of evidence. People think that if a person says they saw something then it must have happened. Currently there are no universal guidelines on how to obtain and present such evidence. The purpose of this paper is to explain why eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and discuss the proposed guidelines on how law enforcement agencies should gather identifications, as well how

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.

Abstract: Over the past twenty years, advancement in DNA technology has directly led to the exoneration of nearly 300 people in the United States. In addition to these scientific advancements, a growing body of literature has focused on the significant roles eyewitness misidentification, so-called “jailhouse snitches,” and false confessions have played in contributing to wrongful convictions in U.S. courts. The aim of this paper is to examine the

With the number of DNA exonerations growing in the recent years, wrongful convictions reveal disturbing trends and fissures in the justice system. It shows how broken the system is, and why it needs urgent fixing. According to Huff (1996), over ten thousand people are convicted wrongfully for serious crimes each year. This study established that factors leading to wrongful convictions are false eyewitnesses, a prejudiced jury, incompetent prosecutors, and suspects’ ignorance. Where DNA evidence clears a suspect, array of reasons emerge; misconduct, mistakes, to race and class factors. It is important to make DNA data available to attorneys in order to enable them mount a strong

Abstract: Over the past twenty years, advancement in DNA technology has directly led to the exoneration of nearly 300 people in the United States. In addition to these scientific advancements, a growing body of literature has focused on the significant roles eyewitness misidentification, so-called “jailhouse snitches,” and false confessions have played in contributing to wrongful convictions in U.S. courts. The aim of this paper is to examine the occurrence of wrongful conviction in criminal trials and the effect of DNA testing on bringing attention to the alarming frequency of these unjust judicial outcomes. Through an examination of previous wrongful conviction research and appellate court rulings, this paper will also explore the extent to which permitting wrongful convictions to be upheld constitutes a violation of civil liberties. Finally, this paper will discuss an important contradiction that advancements in science have exposed within our criminal justice system; while DNA technology and other advanced forensic techniques are increasingly being relied upon to secure criminal convictions, the justice system seems to be correspondingly reluctant to consider these forms of evidence for the

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

With the initiative of the innocence project, many of these convictions are being overturned, allowing families to be reunited. There are many reasons why these wrongful convictions happen. The most common among them is false eyewitness identification, which has played a role in more than 75 percent of wrongful convictions overturned by the Innocence Project initiative. Once presumed to be incontrovertible, the ever growing body of evidence now tells that eyewitness identifications are unreliable (please see image A2 for the trending of exonerations year by year). In approximately, 25 percent of DNA exoneration cases, innocent people were coerced into making false confessions. Of the 292 people freed by the Innocence Project, 28 actually pled

Since the late 1980s, there have been thousands of cases in which prime suspects have been wrongfully convicted, the most common causes being eyewitness misidentification, incriminating statements, and statements from informants. According to The Innocence Project, there have been almost four hundred post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in our country, and they are working to investigate even more wrongful conviction cases. This life changing program, along with their six attorneys, gather information about thousands of cases and determine whether or not DNA evidence can be reevaluated. Kenneth Ireland’s case was submitted for litigation after they found that the court relied heavily on false statements from witnesses. Researchers working

An eyewitness testimony is a proceeding whereby the witness of a crime will stand in court and recall the events which they perceived and is involved in the identification of the perpetrator (Laney & Loftus, n.d.). Eyewitnesses testimonies have become a staple for many legal proceedings and is often taken as hard evidence for a crime which someone has committed. However, there has been a staggering number of innocent people who have been convicted of a crime based on eyewitness testimonies. This is what led to the creation of the Innocence Project whose mission is to use DNA evidence to free wrongly convicted individuals ("About - Innocence Project," n.d.). This essay will explore some of the reasons behind mistaken eyewitness testimonies,

According to Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer (2003), the majority of convictions overturned by DNA evidence involved mistaken eyewitness testimony. The Innocence Project estimates that around 70% of the convictions due to eyewitness misidentification have been overturned by DNA evidence (2015). A main factor in this occurrence is that eyewitness memory is unreliable (Wright, 2007). Eyewitness identification in a line-up is an important tool in criminal investigations. The eyewitness evidence that results from these line-ups has an impact on the subsequent investigation and prosecution procedures (Wells, 1984). Furthermore, according to Wright, it is not just about witnesses making errors when identifying, misidentifying, or not identifying, a suspect

The Innocence Project was established in the wake of a landmark study by the United States Department of Justice and the United States Senate with help from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (Schneider, 2013). This study found that there were numerous reasons why people are wrongfully convicted including, but not limited to eye witness identification, perjured testimony, improper forensic science techniques, and government misconduct (Roberts & Weathered, 2009) The original Innocence Project was founded twenty two (22) years ago as a part of the Cardoza School of Law of Yeshiva University in New York City, New York (Davis, 2012). The Innocence Projects primary goal is to exonerate those whom have been convicted of a crime when there is DNA evidence available to be tested or re-tested (Mitchell, 2011). DNA testing has been possible in five (5) percent to ten (10) percent of cases since 1992 (Risinger, 2007). On the other side, other members of the Innocence Project help to exonerate those have been convicted of a crime where there is no DNA evidence to test. A goal of the Innocence Project is to conduct research on the reasons for wrongful convictions, how to fix the criminal justice system, as well as advocate for those who have been wrongfully convicted (Steiker & Steiker, 2005). The members of this organization strive to teach the world about the dangers of wrongful convictions. To date, this non-profit legal organization, has freed three hundred eighteen (318)

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.

DNA evidence is thought to be the greatest tool to determine conviction status of suspects in criminal cases. However, since its use in. issues have arisen between individuals’ understanding of the committed crime and the accurate results of evidence and how this effects a suspect’s final conviction status. As a result, researchers of this article conducted three studies to determine whether scientific forensic evidence is being mistreated by jurors in criminal court case decisions.

To begin with, new technology has come forth in helping lawyers prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Today, courts and lawyers have access to DNA tests. Modern day technology can now distinguish between individual DNA codes with great accuracy. We can use skin, saliva, blood, and/or hair samples. Half of the cases that have used DNA evidence have confirmed the defendant as guilty. While this can help determine who is guilty, DNA testing can also help determine if someone is not guilty for the crimes they are being charged with. In fact, as of September 2011, 273 people, including 17 death row inmates, have been exonerated due to new DNA evidence. 17 people were wrongly convicted. 17 people waited for years to see their families again. 17 people were put on death row instead of being trusted. 17 people would have been murdered for a crime they did not commit. Without DNA testing, these seventeen lives could be in the ground by now (“DNA”).