Eyewitness identification

research has provided evidence that there is a rather frequent occurrence of false identifications of innocent people in line-ups (Lindsay, Wells, Rumpel, & Campbell, 1981). Eyewitness memories are often distorted by inaccurate memories of how accurate their original identification was (Wells & Bradfield, 1998). Often the eyewitness will be unsure at the time of the line-up identification, but when recalling the identification process they often give a confident positive response (Wells & Bradfield, 1998)

over 1% of those people are on death row. Those 2,900 people are set to die because they have been convicted of a heinous crime by a jury of their peers who found their guilt to be beyond a reasonable doubt. A study which polls jurors found that eyewitness testimony is the most compelling evidence which leads a jury to convict (Kerr). But researchers and lawyers can attest that not all 2.2 million people who are currently incarcerated are guilty (Innocence). In some percentage of these cases, the

that they did not commit. All of these cases had one thing in common: mistaken eyewitness identification. According to Webster dictionary, an eyewitness identification can be summed up by someone who sees something happen and is able to describe it. In reality, mistaken eyewitness identification has become a huge complication in the United States, because of the difficulties that follow it. Mistaken eyewitness identification has been the leading contributing factors to wrongful convictions. (The Innocence

Investigating Research Analyses and Implications of False Memories for Eyewitness Testimony Emily Jane McVey Humboldt State University Abstract Eyewitness testimony is one of the leading pieces of evidence used to prosecute court cases. However, the human mind is vulnerable to numerous

Miscarriages of justices occur due to many variables including faulty or wrong confessions, faulty identifications, wrongful DNA evidence, and the police’s overreach of power. On February 9, 1978, a student from the College of William and Mary, located in Williamsburg, Virginia was sexually assaulted at gunpoint. When the police arrived at the scene, she described her assailant as an African-American male about 5’6 in height and weighing around 145. Having gathered this information, the victim agreed

children by arson, although he insisted he was innocent. The evidence brought against him? There was eyewitness testimonies and firefighters found “pouring patterns”, which are used to detect arson. Those methods fall under the category of forensics. Forensics consists of scientific techniques and tests used to investigate a crime. Today, the most commonly used examples of forensics are eyewitness testimonies, DNA matching, polygraphs, and use of fingerprints. In the majority of cases, provided evidence

composite Thompson made and arrested Ronald J. Cotton on August 1, of 1984. Thompson was able to identify Cotton under photo identification and then successfully chose him again in the physical line-up. The second victim, however did not chose Cotton in either of the lineups. Cotton went to trial in January of 1985. The evidence included Thompson’s photo and physical lineup identification, Thompson’s composite sketch, a flashlight found in Cotton’s house that resembled the one used in the second victim’s

Validity of Eyewitness Testimony Validity of Eyewitness Testimony In today's court system one of the strongest pieces of evidence, or that most commonly accepted as fact by a jury, is eyewitness testimony. When correct, eyewitness accounts can aid in the conviction of many guilty people. However when it is incorrect, eyewitness testimony can do severe damage. Researchers have found that "more innocent citizens are wrongfully tried and convicted on the basis of eyewitness evidence in Great Britain

details regarding important forensic details such as person descriptors (Kebbell & Milne, 1998). Furthermore, information in memory can become distorted. Erroneous eyewitness testimony is recognised as the leading cause for the conviction of innocent suspects (Huff, Rattner & Sagarin, 1996). Obtaining good quality, reliable eyewitness evidence is thus vital for both investigations and preventing miscarriages

Vishal Singh Professor Lynch 10/20/15 Outline Specific purpose: To inform the class about how unreliable eyewitness identification can be. Central idea: To inform the class about how stress, presence of weapon, and pressure to choose can play a role in mistaken identify. Main Point #1: Stress can be an important factor in picking a suspect. Main Point #2: Presence of weapon can have a big impact on identifying a culprit. Main Point #3: Pressure to choose someone out of photos or in person line up