The Role Of Eyewitness Testimony On Jurors

The use of eyewitnesses as the sole source of evidence is one of the leading reasons for wrongful convictions. In some cases, authorities relied on only one eyewitness to convict a suspect. Such a witness could have a personal vendetta against the defendant. In the Darryl Hunt case, Sykes’ mother maintained she was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Hunt was her daughter’s killer. If she had been the sole eyewitness, Hunt would probably have been incarcerated for life. Since eyewitness testimony is the ubiquitous factor, there is an urgent need for triangulation and collaboration of evidence to guarantee justice for all people suspected of committing any felony. The issue of race and class also needs attention. A jury may be prejudiced because of color or rank. Such cases erode the tenets upon which justice is based, and deny innocent people of their freedom.

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.

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 the past decade, eyewitness testimonies have cast a shadow on what is wrong with the justice system in today’s society. Before we had the advanced technology, we have today, eyewitness testimonies were solid cold-hard facts when it came to proving the defendant was guilty. However, time has changed and eyewitness testimonies have proven to be the leading causes of wrongful convictions due to misidentification. The Thompson and Cotton case is a perfect example of how eyewitness testimonies can put an innocent man behind bars.

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 the U.S. our system is formulated by various means to construct tweleve fair and unbiased jurors. Whom acording to our text, hypothetically decide cases based on “burden of proof and reasonable doubt.” These individuals listen and take into account the evidence and testimoneys of witnesses appointed by both the prosecution and defense through the duration of the trial. Though many make a preliminary decision based on the opening statements. Once trial has commenced the jury is dissmissed to the deliberation room. Where disscussion about the elements of the case and the defendents specific actions begin, but jurors usually vote as soon as they retire to jury room and the orginal vote wins the majority of the time. Allowing their own

In the late 19th-century research on eyewitness, testimony memory began, psychologists had been studying memory, and the findings became useful for forensic psychology and law. A central issue with studying eyewitness memory and testimony is the ecological validity of lab studies. There are relatively few ‘real world’ eyewitness memory studies, and that causes problems for determining the generalizability of findings in eyewitness memory. Coined by Wells (1978) estimator variables are present at the time of a crime and cannot be changed (i.e. witness characteristics and the type of offence) and system variables are factors that can be manipulated to affect eyewitness accuracy (i.e. line-up procedures and interview types). The system variables

“Why Eye Witnesses Get it Wrong,” a speech by Dr. Scott Fraser explains the different aspects of the criminal trial process. More importantly, it explains the use of eyewitness testimony and its consequences on trial outcomes, and in this case a criminal trial and its portrayal of a wrongly convicted man. The presentation uses all three tools of persuasive argument ethos, pathos, and logos to appeal to the audience and explains each in their own way. However, the argument tends to sway the audience towards respecting reason and information over being emotional or pathos driven.

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:

The assigned reading this week by Doob, A. & Kirshenbaum, H., Singall, H. & Ostrove, N., Diamond, S., and Mook, D., discussed different aspects of jury research. Doob & Kirshenbaum (1973), as well as Singall & Ostrove (1975) wrote experimental research papers where they examined a jury's decisions and point of view when it comes to determining a defendants guilt. One discussed this in the terms of whether a jury can determine creditability, and not guilt, based on a defendants past criminal history; while the other considered whether beauty interferes with a jury's decision for a defendant to receive a more lenient or harsher punishment. With these, the paper by Diamond (1997) explained how jury research usually lacks certain characteristics that make these experiments unreliable. Mook (1983) took another standpoint and discussed how things like naturalness of the experiment and generalizability cannot determine reliable results, and that a lack of a real life settings can sometimes produce stronger results.

“Wrongfully convicted at age 25, Calvin Johnson received a life sentence for the rape of a Georgia woman after four different women identified him. Exonerated in 1999, he walked out of prison a 41-year old man. The true rapist has never been found, (The Justice Project).” Eyewitness testimony is highly relied on by judges, but it can not always be trusted. Approximately 48% of wrong convictions are because of mistaken identity by eyewitnesses (The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony). After we discovered this information, we became curious as to whether in a testimony, the eyewitness’ memory is more reliable after a short period of time or after a longer period of time? According to previous experiments, eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Likely, we want to know if a testimony that is given two to three hours after a crime has taken place is more reliable than a testimony given after a longer period of time.

The results of this project showed that male expert witnesses were perceived more likeable to the fake jurors than the female. When people

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.

Other studies examined whether gender played a significant role in juror’s decision when determining the criminal culpability in a criminal case. Additionally, a study conducted by Breheney, Groscup, and Galietta, (2007) investigated the impact of gender differences amidst the context of the insanity plea. Specifically, Breheney, Groscup, and Galietta determined if there had been any correlation existed between the gender of the mock juror, as well as the gender of the defendant in the determination of an insanity verdict. The results indicated that the gender of the defendant profoundly affected the verdict made by the juror. Contrary to previous findings, where judgments for females have traditionally been more lenient, female defendants