Eyewitness Identification And Testimony Summary In Court ✓ Solved

7 Eyewitness Identification and Testimony SUMMARY In the courtroom

In the courtroom, eyewitness identification is one of the most damning types of evidence. When an eyewitness identifies a perpetrator of a crime, jurors often stop hearing other evidence. This is especially true when the witness is an innocent bystander to a crime. However, a great deal of research has demonstrated the fallibility of eyewitness identification.

An eyewitness’s ability to correctly identify a criminal depends mainly on his or her memory. The memory process has been broken down into three stages, and errors can occur at any one of them: encoding, storage, and retrieval.

According to one study, in 74% of convictions, eyewitness testimony was the only evidence, and in nearly half of those cases, there was only a single eyewitness. Erroneous eyewitness identifications are responsible for more wrongful convictions than any other type of evidence. The Manson criteria specify five variables that should be considered when evaluating an individual’s eyewitness identification: opportunity to view the criminal, level of attention, accuracy of a previous description, degree of certainty, and amount of time between the crime and identification. Most of these variables are difficult to estimate, and eyewitness certainty is unrelated to accuracy.

The phenomenon of witnesses being more accurate in identifying people of their own race than people of other races is called the cross-race effect (or own-race bias). Research has shown that even people who are relatively low in prejudice still have trouble identifying persons of other races. The rate of false alarms (misidentifications) is much larger when the identification is made cross-racially, but the cross-rate effect appears to lessen with increased contact with other races.

Witnesses have been shown to have higher correct identifications in conditions of low stress than in conditions of high stress. Witnesses also show higher false positives in high-stress conditions than in low-stress conditions, regardless of the type of identification procedure. One explanation of this finding is that in highly stressful situations, especially those involving weapons, observers focus on the weapon rather than on the perpetrator.

Witnesses are also likely to identify someone near the scene of the crime as the person who committed it or tend to make an identification during the identification procedure through a process called unconscious transference. Suggestive comments and presumptive questions can also lead to mistaken recall. Although jurors often think a witness’s confidence is a good indicator of accuracy, data suggest otherwise.

Scientific research has offered methods to reduce the system variables and improve eyewitness accuracy. Methods include using blind lineup administrators, providing unbiased instructions during a lineup, ensuring that lineups are less biased, allowing for video recording of identifications, using sequential rather than six-pack lineups, and allowing expert testimony to address the issue of eyewitness accuracy. Methods such as hypnosis have been shown to be ineffective at improving eyewitness memory, whereas the cognitive interview increases the number of relevant details recalled without increasing the amount of incorrect information.

Paper For Above Instructions

Eyewitness identification plays a crucial role in the judicial system, often swaying juror perceptions and influencing verdicts. Despite its persuasive power, numerous studies underline the risks associated with reliance on eyewitness testimony, revealing that it can lead to wrongful convictions. Understanding the underlying reasons for misidentification and developing strategies for improving eyewitness accuracy is imperative for the legitimacy of the legal process.

The memory of an eyewitness can significantly influence the accuracy of their identification. Memory is a complex process divided into three critical stages: encoding, storage, and retrieval. Errors can transpire at any point in this process. Encoding, for instance, involves how an eyewitness perceives and understands an event, which can be affected by various factors such as lighting conditions and the presence of a weapon. Once information is encoded, it must be stored adequately; however, decay can occur over time, leading to diminished recall accuracy. Finally, the retrieval process is crucial as it involves accessing stored memories, which can be influenced by the way questions are posed during investigations (Lindsay & Wells, 1985).

Research indicates that eyewitness testimony may be more persuasive to juries than any other type of evidence, as evidenced by the statistic that in around 74% of wrongful convictions, eyewitness testimony was the sole evidence (Innocence Project, n.d.). This finding posits a significant risk, considering that misidentifications account for over 75% of wrongful convictions in the United States (Wells et al., 1998). Key contributing factors include the Manson criteria, which emphasizes the importance of assessing opportunity, attention levels, and the accuracy of prior descriptions among others, in evaluating eyewitness reliability. Nevertheless, challenges persist in evaluating these criteria, particularly in the context of biased questioning and juror overestimation of eyewitness reliability (Lindsay & Wells, 1985).

One notable phenomenon in eyewitness identification is the cross-race effect, whereby individuals are generally less accurate at identifying persons of a different race compared to their own (Meissner & Brigham, 2001). Research suggests that increased contact with diverse racial groups can reduce this bias, highlighting the importance of demystifying racial stereotypes and fostering intergroup relations to improve identification accuracy.

Stress levels during the witnessing of an event also play a crucial role in memory performance. Studies indicate that individuals under high stress are less accurate in identifying perpetrators, citing results that show correct identifications at 71% in low-stress conditions, compared to only 38% in high-stress situations. Additionally, witnesses tend to focus on weapons during high-stress encounters, further detracting from their ability to remember the assailant accurately (Deffenbacher et al., 2004).

Given the potential for error at multiple stages of memory recall, various strategies have emerged within the judicial system to enhance the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Implementing procedures such as blind lineup administration, which limits the potential for unintentional influence from lineup officials, alongside standardized instructions for witnesses can significantly improve accuracy rates (Wells et al., 1998). Moreover, cognitive interviews, which encourage witnesses to reconstruct their memories in a supportive environment, have proven effective in yielding more accurate recollections without leading to increased confabulation (Fisher et al., 1987).

Despite the complexities surrounding eyewitness testimony, ongoing research into memory functions and identification processes offers promising pathways for reform. Policymakers and practitioners must remain vigilant concerning the implementation of evidence-based practices designed to empower eyewitnesses and minimize the risks of erroneous identification.

References

• Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & Hayne, H. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 687-706.
• Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Amador, M. (1987). Enhancing eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. American Scientist, 75(4), 292-300.
• Innocence Project. (n.d.). Eyewitness identification. Retrieved from https://www.innocenceproject.org/eyewitness-identification/
• Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identification: An experimental study of the effectiveness of the photo lineup and witness confidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2(1-2), 53-67.
• Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces. Psychological Bulletin, 127(5), 700-730.
• Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. (1998). Eyewitness testimony: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(3), 348-390.
• State v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (N.J. 2011).
• Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012).
• State v. Lawson, 291 P.3d 672 (Or. 2012).