Eyewitness Testimony And Its Impact On The Outcome Of A Trial

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 shown that mistaken eyewitness identification was one of the largest factors contributing to the sentence of innocent people (Wells & Olson, 2003). For example, 75% of the first 271 cases of DNA exoneration in the US resulted in eyewitness testimony error (Brewer & Wells cited

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.

In order to comprehend the contribution of psychology to areas of criminal investigation it is important to evaluate research into two of the following areas of criminal investigation: eye witness testimony and offender profiling as well as assess the implications of the findings in the area of criminal investigation. In addition, this essay, with reference to relevant psychological research, discuss how the characteristics of the defendant may influence jury behaviour as well as analyse two psychological influences on the decision making process of juries. In order to improve the efficiency of detection and successful prosecution of crime it is important to underline that in a previous administration, detection of serious crime was poor and eyewitness testimony appeared very unreliable, partly due to standard interview techniques yielding confusing results. It is therefore this essays primary focus is to provide the chief constable with a report explaining how psychologists might be able to improve this situation with a full evaluation of process and evidence.

The impact of eyewitness testimony upon the members of a jury has been the subject of various research projects and has guided the policies formed by the federal government regarding its competent use in criminal matters (Wells, Malpass, Lindsay, Fisher, Turtle, & Fulero, 2000). Therefore, eyewitness studies are important to understand how

The most vicious cause of wrongful conviction is eyewitness misidentification. According to the Innocence Project, 72% of overturned wrongful convictions through DNA testing were due to eyewitness misidentification1. As this statistics implies, eyewitness identification (Eye-ID) is untrustworthy information. The main reason why Eye-ID lacks accuracy is due to malleability of memories. The Innocence Project asserts there are two variables greatly influence memory and also Eye-ID. One type of variables is “estimator variables” which are incontrollable factors by the criminal justice system. Examples of estimator variables are environmental factors (e.g., lighting and distance) when the crime occurred, racial factors, and psychological factors (e.g., severity of trauma)1. The other type of variable is “system variables” which is controllable by the criminal justice system. These variables are within the procedure of attaining evidences. For instance, post-identification feedback (e.g., confirming feedback that an eyewitness receives), biased lineup/ photo array composition, biased administrators of lineup can negatively influences Eye-ID.

The Eyewitness testimony has been used for a long time as evidence in a crime scene. Many psychologists tried to answer the question if the eyewitness testimony is correct and true all the time or not. This research study done by STARR (2012) addresses that eyewitness memory can be changed depends on the satiation and what kind of question that we ask the eyewitness during the police investigations or in the court room. While STARR’s article raises timely and important issue, he included a good scientific research explaining how false eyewitness could be.

When in a stressful situation, it is often easy to see aspects of the situation at hand to be more dramatized than they really are. It is not that eyewitnesses mean to embellish while on the stand, but more so that their psychological state during the event has caused them to remember what really happened differently. This dramatization of a situation’s details, however slightly or largely slanted, can change the way that a jury processes the course of events used to make judgments of the defendant. The distinction between a “large knife” and a “kitchen knife” as well as the contrasting details between a man’s face can make all the difference in a court case and, sometimes, the person being thrown behind bars for life without parole. “Anxiety or stress is almost always associated with real life crimes of violence”, says Jerry L. Deffenbacher, a psychologist specializing in the area of cognition who reviewed 21 studies on stress and memory performance. The correlation between the two can be explained using the Yerkes-Dodson Curve.

Based on those experiments, Loftus affirms the inaccuracy of our memory, events may be reconstructed with new information added. Applying those results into criminal investigations based on eyewitness, Loftus pointed out that witness is questioned often more than once. Also, studies have demonstrated that line-up might be a inefficient way of point a suspect since many faces are introduced to the witness. In addition to eyewitness testimony, Loftus is leading also in repressed childhood memory. Most of her experiments demonstrated that repressed childhood memories do not exist. In fact, the most traumatic memories that we experience are the ones that we tend to not forget

Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.

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.

The data gathered from this research should have us question the validity and accuracy of the human memory. Although, we want to believe our memories are exact representations of an important event it is susceptible to false details and sometimes even completely distorted. Using eye witness testimony in the American court system seems unfair to its American citizens. When eye witness testimonies result in wrongly convicting someone the American court system failed the initial victim and created another victim in the process while the true criminal is still at large likely still committing crimes. The victim deserves justice and the wrongly accused do as well. American citizens should have confidence in its court system to keep them safe by correctly convicting another of a crime.

Juries tend to pay close attention to eyewitness testimony and generally find it a reliable source of information. However, research into this area has found that eyewitness testimony can be affected by many psychological factors.

The lawyer would use their specific tactics of negotiation and sometimes fear to get into the mind of the eyewitness, therefore causing the eyewitness to experience errors in their memory while on the stand during a heavy trial. Moveover, the significant errors that can occur during these important moments that the eyewitness tries to recall the memories of their horrific and/or pleasant memories can be either forgotten or interpreted in an entirely different way or tone. Therefore giving the lawyer an opportunity to attack with questions of curiosity and the need for justice. The problem with eyewitnesses in court can be sometimes the person is not being fully trustworthy and honest, while being questioned on the stand, and their memory can

There has been great controversy about utilizing eyewitness identification in courts as a reliable method of conviction. However, police officers, investigators, prosecutors, and the courts often rely on eyewitness identification and testimonies to prosecute criminals. Records show that eyewitness identification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions of criminals. More than 73% of more than 200 wrongful convictions in the United States have been overturned, and one third of these cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. I believe that eyewitness identification is not a reliable way of conviction because of the many different problems with memory such as reconstructive

Dear James Blackburn, thank you for contacting me with your case. As an expert witness, I am more than happy to assist you in the examination of the prosecution witness’ evidence and account of the incident. Firstly, we must consider any confounding factors that may have influenced the witness’ memory and therefore influencing their testimony. Some factors we must consider are; cross-race effect (CRE), weapon focus effect, own age bias (OAB) and the bystander effect. I will attempt to aid you in this case by referring to information and knowledge that has been provided and highlighted by previous research. These factors must be deliberated in regards to the validity and credibility of the witness’s statement. Nonetheless, I will provide as much information I can to help with your client’s case.