Case Study 2: Justin Ross Harris According To Media Reports

Case Study 2 Justin Ross Harrisaccording To Media Reports Justin Ros

Case Study 2: Justin Ross Harris According to media reports, Justin Ross Harris, the Georgia dad whose 22-month-old son, died after being left in a hot car, was indicted by a grand jury on multiple murder charges. In this case study, you will explore police investigative techniques and their application to the case of Justin Ross Harris. Review the following articles and documents regarding the Justin Ross Harris case. Review the facts of the case, along with the indictment and article on eyewitness testimony. Indictment document, located at “Ross Harris indicted for murder in son’s hot car death,” located at “The limits of eyewitness testimony.” Write a three to five (3-5) page paper in which you: Take a position on whether or not the judge should allow eyewitness testimony to factor into the jury’s decision on this case. Next, discuss two (2) factors which would influence a witness’s ability to make an accurate identification. Provide a rationale for your response. Summarize the nine (9) sequential steps that comprise the Reid technique for interrogation. Next, identify the step(s) in the process that you believe to be the most important, and support your opinion. Choose two (2) of the eight (8) total counts, from the indictment document, and identify the evidence that the police have uncovered to substantiate these counts. Next, identify one (1) count that you believe the police cannot substantiate with the evidence they have already disclosed. Provide a rationale to support your response. As a result of the surrounding circumstances and media attention given to this case, speculate on the likelihood of officers presuming that Justin Ross Harris is guilty and engaging in investigative bias. Next, determine the impact on the pursuit of justice in this case if the officers have indeed presumed guilt and engaged in investigative bias. Use at least three (3) quality references. Note: Wikipedia and other related websites do not qualify as academic resources. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Justin Ross Harris presents a complex intersection of forensic psychology, legal procedures, and investigative practices. Harris, a Georgia father, was accused of leaving his 22-month-old son in a hot car, resulting in the child's tragic death. The case garnered substantial media attention, raising questions about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, investigative techniques, and potential biases that can influence judicial outcomes. This paper critically analyzes whether eyewitness testimony should be admitted into the jury's decision-making process, evaluates factors affecting witness accuracy, reviews the Reid interrogation technique, examines police evidence, and discusses the potential impact of investigative bias on the pursuit of justice.

Admissibility of Eyewitness Testimony

The reliability of eyewitness testimony has been extensively debated within forensic psychology. In the case of Harris, whether the judge should allow such testimony hinges on its credibility and the potential for error. While eyewitness accounts can be pivotal, they are inherently fallible due to factors such as memory distortions, suggestion, and stress (Wells & Bradfield, 1998). Given the propensity for such testimonies to be inaccurate, courts often employ strict scrutiny before admitting them. In Harris's case, I contend that the judge should cautiously weigh eyewitness testimony, ensuring it does not unjustly sway the jury unless corroborated by supporting evidence. The risk of wrongful conviction stemming from mistaken eyewitness identification necessitates a cautious approach (Gronlund et al., 2014).

Factors Influencing Accurate Identification

Two key factors impacting an eyewitness's ability to accurately identify suspects include lighting conditions and the presence of stress during an incident. First, poor lighting can obscure facial features and hinder recognition accuracy, as visual perception is compromised in low-light environments (Yullie & Cutshall, 1986). Second, high-stress situations, such as witnessing a crime or traumatic event, can impair memory encoding and recall, leading to potential errors (Deffenbacher, 1980). Both factors underscore the importance of contextual elements that can distort witness reliability.

The Reid Technique: Steps and Critical Components

The Reid technique comprises nine sequential steps designed to facilitate suspect interrogation and ascertain truthfulness:

1. Confrontation or Gathering of Evidence
2. Theme Development
3. Stopping Denials
4. Overcoming Objections
5. Retelling the Crime
6. Recovering Suspect's Feelings
7. Handling Suspect's Passive Mood
8. Alternative Questioning or Purposes
9. Recognizing Signs of Deception

Among these, the most pivotal step is often considered to be "Theme Development," as it involves establishing a narrative that addresses the suspect's psyche, potentially leading to confession. Developing an empathetic yet controlled rapport can make suspects more receptive to disclosure, significantly influencing the outcome of interrogation efforts (Kassin et al., 2018).

Analysis of Police Evidence and Counts

From the indictment, two counts—such as second-degree murder and acts of depraved indifference—can be substantiated by evidence including surveillance footage, electronic communications, and Harris’s behavior leading up to the incident. For instance, records indicating intentional distraction or prior suspicious communications could support the murder charge. Conversely, for one count, such as possibly involuntary manslaughter, if police lack direct evidence linking Harris’s actions directly to negligence or recklessness, that count may be more difficult to substantiate (Hicks et al., 2014).

Potential for Investigative Bias

Media coverage and public opinion surrounding Harris's case could predispose officers to presume guilt, consciously or unconsciously. The phenomenon known as "confirmation bias" may lead investigators to interpret ambiguous evidence as incriminating, thereby narrowing the scope of inquiry and disregarding exculpatory evidence (Koehler, 2014). Such biases undermine objectivity and threaten the fairness of the judicial process, potentially leading to wrongful convictions—a concern that is particularly significant given media influence (DePaulo & Pfeifer, 2012).

Impact on Justice

If investigative bias pervades Harris’s case, the pursuit of justice may be compromised through wrongful convictions or overlooked evidence favoring innocence. This bias can distort investigative priorities, leading to tunnel vision and diminishing procedural fairness (Lindsay et al., 2014). The integrity of the judicial process relies heavily on impartiality, and bias can erode public trust in the system and the legitimacy of verdicts.

Conclusion

In summary, while eyewitness testimony can be invaluable, its potential for inaccuracy warrants cautious admission in court proceedings involving critical cases such as Harris's. Factors like environmental conditions and psychological stress influence accuracy, emphasizing the necessity for corroborative evidence. The Reid technique remains a structured approach, with theme development playing a crucial role in effective interrogation. Evaluating police evidence with a critical eye is essential to prevent wrongful convictions, especially amid media-induced biases that can distort investigative objectivity. Upholding fairness in forensic investigations is fundamental to justice and the integrity of the legal process.

References

• Deffenbacher, K. A. (1980). The influence of stress and arousal on eyewitness recall. Journal of Criminal Justice, 8(3), 223-230.
• DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, J. E. (2012). The Wisdom of Trusting Your Gut. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Disability: Integrating Resilience and Acceptance (pp. 123-137). Oxford University Press.
• Gronlund, S. D., et al. (2014). Accuracy of eyewitness identification: A review of factors and policies. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59(4), 993-998.
• Hicks, T., et al. (2014). Evidence evaluation in criminal cases: The role of forensic science. Crime Laboratory Digest, 20(2), 45-52.
• Kassin, S. M., et al. (2018). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 55, 21-29.
• Koehler, D. J. (2014). Confirmation bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 638-652.
• Lindsay, R. C. L., et al. (2014). The impact of media coverage on wrongful convictions. American Psychologist, 69(5), 406-417.
• Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). Witness stand: Cognitive psychology and eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 22(4), 409-422.
• Yullie, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory interference. Law and Human Behavior, 10(4), 355-368.