The Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony in Criminal Cases

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Psychological Development
Technological Developments
Scientific Developments
DNA Evidence
Conclusion
References

Witnesses have a crucial role to play in the criminal justice system, as their actions and words have a critical impact on the direction of cases. Eyewitness testimony refers to the accounts given by a person regarding an event they witnessed (Jain, 2000). In essence, eyewitnesses are required to provide descriptions of what they saw during such events. Eyewitness testimonies are considered direct evidence and can be regarded during forensic investigations, thus, ensuring that justice is served (Jain, 2000). However, despite proving useful in criminal investigation and persecution, studies have indicated they are unreliable. Scientific, psychological, and technological developments have proved the unreliability of eyewitnesses in criminal prosecution. Connectedly, this paper discusses the challenges involved in reliance on eyewitness testimonies.

Psychological Development

History of Psychological Development

Psychological developments and studies in the criminal justice system have been used in establishing that eyewitness testimonies are not reliable. The developments date back to the 20th century when Garry Wells used psychological lens to learn their reliability. In his examination, Wells established that eyewitnesses gain influence from various psychological factors, which could detrimentally affect their decision-making and reasoning abilities (Helm et al., 2016). Throughout the 20th century, psychologists continued questioning the reliability of eyewitnesses in cases whereby the anxiety/stress simulation was adopted. In this simulation, psychologists established that stresses show huge associations with violent crimes happening in real life. Wells established that people who view violent attacks are more likely to remember less than 40% of the ordeals due to the induced stresses during the events (Helm et al., 2016). During criminal activity, one’s memory system is altered, thus resulting in lower retention rates than in normal circumstances.

In his study, Wells relied on the estimator versus system variables to establish a six-person lineup. By definition, estimator variables are those factors that have a significant impact on eyewitness identification accuracy. In essence, the variables do not lie under the criminal justice system (Helm et al., 2016). They are the variables that can easily be altered and controlled by the prosecutors and the police, thus leading to changes in the eyewitness identification process. On the contrary, the police and the prosecutors cannot control or alter the system variables (Helm et al., 2016). For instance, Wells’ study relied on eyewitness’ imperfections in the memory system. Wells established that these two forms of variables could play a critical role in determining one’s memory of a criminal offense.

Various incidences have been used to show the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies. In one such case involving an Elon College student, Jennifer Thompson proved the role of estimator and system variables in the criminal eyewitness identification. In this case, Thompson was raped by a man, and after the assault, she offered him coffee. After acceptance, Jennifer escaped to a neighbor’s house, where she contacted the police. However, during this period, the perpetrator escaped, but Jennifer, through the help of the police, managed to describe the perpetrator for sketching purposes. The police presented her with lineup images, which she used to identify Ronald Cotton as the perpetrator (Roper & Shewan, 2002). Years later, it was established that Cotton was innocent, and a wrong identification process was used. In this case, Jennifer provided the wrong information due to the stress and fear she had encountered during the rape ordeal. In essence, her psychological abilities were altered during this stressful event, thus making her memory system to be altered. Consequently, she ended up providing the wrong identification, thus proving the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies based on the psychological lens.

Factors Affecting Eyewitness Performance

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus found that there are various psychological factors that influence the accuracy and performance of eyewitnesses. According to Roper & Shewan (2002), reconstructive memory, leading questions, weapon focus, and stress have a crucial impact on eyewitness performance. According to Loftus, one’s memory is hugely impacted by stress or arousal levels (Roper & Shewan, 2002). At low stresses, one’s memory effectiveness is deemed. The efficiency increases with stress arousal up to an optimal stage. After the optimal stress stage, the memory levels reduce sharply, thus, making someone unable to remember whatever happens. Hence, a witness only remembers what they feel will make sense to prosecutors and the police. In the end, their revelation could be inaccurate, thus, rendering eyewitnesses inaccurate (Roper & Shewan, 2002). Loftus also states that eyewitnesses are more likely to focus on weapons rather than the perpetrator, impacting memory status. Therefore, psychological factors like stress alter eyewitnesses’ memory of a criminal event, by altering their memory efficiency.

Compliance with Misleading Expert Pressures

In examining the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, Rachael Roper and David Shewan carried out a compliance study at Glasgow University. In this study, the researchers examined the procedures that can make eyewitnesses comply with the authority figures (Roper & Shewan, 2002). The participants watched short video clips and then asked specific questions on what they had seen. Poor witnesses in the study were established as those who altered their initial responses to conform to the leading questions. On the contrary, good witnesses were those who improved their initial responses. In a similar manner, when subjected to authority questioning, witnesses can alter their responses, thus, proving their unreliability in the criminal justice systems.

Technological Developments

Data from the Courtroom

Technology has also been used in proving the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies in the criminal justice system. In the use of technology to prove eyewitness unreliability, scholars rely on statistical findings in and out of the courtrooms. In one such case showing the impact of inside and outside court statistics in eyewitness identification, the case, Perry v. New Hampshire, established that identifications made outside the court could be used as evidence in the court (Vallas, 2011). In this case, a Hampshire officer received information that an African-American man was breaking into people’s cars, stealing their possessions. On reaching the crime scene, the caller only identified the only African-American man in the vicinity. In the end, the case did not consider the possibilities that another African-American man could have been responsible for the thefts.

In a study to establish the beliefs on factors influencing eyewitness reliability among judges, the general public, and jurors, Magnussen et al. (2010) established that increasing courtroom understanding of eyewitness reliability could play a critical role in reducing errors. Vallas’ examination of the role of state and federal standards in expert testimony also established that eyewitnesses are more likely to admit to certain evidence when guaranteed discretion (Vallas, 2011). Daubert and Frye’s tests are also critical in explaining the discretion in eyewitness testimonies. In this regard, Daubert focuses on the factor to be considered while Frye questions the expert’s opinion.

Data from Video Footage

Video footage experiments and real-life scenarios have also been used in showing the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies. Videos prove to be more accurate in indicating real-life simulations, which can be achieved through source monitoring frameworks (Gerrie et al., 2006). The hormonal response criteria can also be used in showing the inaccuracies in criminal investigation. In their study, Monds et al. (2016) established that on traumatic conditions, eyewitnesses have high hormonal responses, which could lead to increased risks of inaccuracy. On the contrary, in a neutral event, one’s hormonal response remains stable; hence their memory status is high. Criminal ordeals lead to traumatic events, thus attracting high hormonal responses and consequently leading to inaccurate reporting.

Scientific Developments

How Memory affects Eyewitness Performance

Memory has huge effects on eyewitness performance as it influences what they present to the court as evidence. Elizabeth Loftus’ conceptualization of false memory stated that various psychological factors lead to impaired memory during eyewitness testimonies (Payne et al., 1997). As argued by Payne et al. (1997), the occurrence of criminal activities leads to the development of memory illusions, thus distorting the normal function of the brain. In their study, Helm et al. (2016) established that, implicit associations are also critical in showing false and true witness memories. The Implicit Associations Test states that association of one’s face to crime leads to increased chances of false identification of the associated individual. The method was applied in the case, State versus Henderson, whereby it was established that defendants who show suggestive influence evidence have the right to hearing, upon the examination of all the factors that could have influenced eyewitness evidence. In this study, the researchers formulated a 7-step testing procedure whereby they established that false memory results from unconscious biases. In essence, the occurrence of criminal activities leads to the development of biases, which can be used in driving false testimonies. In essence, reliance on eyewitness testimonies must weigh all the factors that could influence their memory capacities. For instance, Mugshot’s exposure findings indicate how one’s brain recollects to gain a sense of what they are saying, thus resulting in altered outcomes (Kersten & Earles, 2017). Witness misinformation and implantation of information could also lead to high unreliability.

DNA Evidence

DNA Testing of the 1990’s Permitted Definitive Cases

The 1990’s saw a rise in DNA evidence used in the criminal justice system. The introduction of DNA testing proved how eyewitness testimonies had been used in the conviction of high numbers of innocent people across the globe. DNA testing, especially in sexual assault cases, has been used in disapproving the evidence provided by the eyewitnesses. For instance, in cases of sexual assault, various people had been wrongfully convicted due to poor witness identification (Otgaar et al., 2013). According to Otgaar et al. (2013), DNA tests have high accuracies, usually more than 90%, compared to only 50% of the eyewitness methods. The use of DNA testing in evidence collection has evolved over the years, leading to increased accuracy in perpetrator identification.

Convincing the Innocent

The scientific method, especially DNA testing, results in increased challenges during the prosecution process. This method leads to the suspicion of only the lined-up individuals. In essence, for tests to be done, some possible culprits must be identified, thus resulting in the conviction of innocent people. The method is also problematic in that it intentionally or unintentionally suggests those that should be suspected of an event, thus leading to the formation of police lineups. Instead of solving the initial problem with lineup formations, the method leads to increased lineups, whereby more people are wrongfully convicted without guilty proves (Nabalim, 2011). In finding a solution to this problem, the North Carolina State, in 2006, established the North Carolina Innocence Commission, which would ensure that the method is not violated.

Conclusion

Analytical Summary

Psychological, technological, and scientific developments have proved that eyewitness testimonies are unreliable. In the psychological aspect, eyewitnesses were traditionally, pressured to identify perpetrators within the presented lineups. With time, the witnesses were required to comply with the leading experts, thus resulting in increasing unreliability. In technological developments, data findings inside and outside courtrooms have shown high levels of inaccuracies among eyewitnesses. In scientific developments, eyewitnesses are more likely to develop false memories due to a host of factors. For instance, compelling memories push eyewitnesses to release the information they deem fit and sensible to the prosecutors, thus rendering their testimonies unreliable. The IATe 7-step examination also establishes that unconscious biases could also lead to increased chances of poor eyewitness testimonies. The introduction of DNA testing in evidence collection also provided new insights into the topic of eyewitness reliability. DNA examination of past sexual assault cases established huge inaccuracies and wrong incarcerations. The findings by Convincing the Innocent and the Innocent Project indicate that eyewitnesses are highly unreliable.

Thesis Statement and Concluding Thoughts

Eyewitnesses have, over the years, been used in the criminal justice system to identify perpetrators. However, they have low reliability as their memory status can be influenced by several factors. While most people believe that memories are reliable in perpetrator’ identification, most witnesses provide false information due to poor information retention (Jain, 2000). The DNA testing incorporation has proved, to a great extent, that witness testimonies are highly unreliable. Conclusively, eyewitness testimonies are unreliable in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, psychological, scientific, and technological developments have shown widespread evidence that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

References

Gerrie, M. P., Belcher, L. E., & Garry, M. (2006). ‘Mind the gap’: False memories for missing aspects of an event. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 689-696.

Helm, R. K., Ceci, S. J., & Burd, K. A. (2016). Can implicit associations distinguish true and false eyewitness memory? Development and preliminary testing of the IATe. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34(6), 803-819.

Jain, M. (2000). Mitigating the dangers of capital convictions based on eyewitness testimony through treason’s two-witness rule. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 91, 761.

Kersten, A. W., & Earles, J. L. (2017). Feelings of familiarity and false memory for specific associations resulting from mugshot exposure. Memory & Cognition, 45(1), 93-104.

Magnussen, S., Melinder, A., Stridbeck, U., & Raja, A. Q. (2010). Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of judges, jurors and the general public. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 24(1), 122-133.

Monds, L. A., Paterson, H. M., Ali, S., Kemp, R. I., Bryant, R. A., & McGregor, I. S. (2016). Cortisol response and psychological distress predict susceptibility to false memories for a trauma film. Memory, 24(9), 1278-1286.

Nabalim, A. (2011). Out of sight. The New Republic. 242(19), 1.

Otgaar, H., Sauerland, M., & Petrila, J. P. (2013). Novel shifts in memory research and their impact on the legal process: Introduction to the special issue on memory formation and suggestibility in the legal process. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(5), 531-540.

Payne, D. G., Neuschatz, J. S., Lampinen, J. M., & Lynn, S. J. (1997). Compelling memory illusions: The qualitative characteristics of false memories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6(3), 56-60.

Roper, R., & Shewan, D. (2002). Compliance and eyewitness testimony: Do eyewitnesses comply with misleading ‘expert pressure’during investigative interviewing? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7(2), 155-163.

Vallas, G. (2011). A survey of federal and state standards for the admission of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses. American Journal of Criminal Law, 39, 97.

Click Here To Order Now!