A few weeks ago, a group of friends and I witnessed a hit & run while driving down the highway. A van crossed over multiple lanes and rammed the side of a pick-up truck. The impact caused the truck to leave the road and roll down a small grassy embankment. My friends and I couldn’t believe it. We immediately stopped to help the driver of the truck while the van sped off continuing to swerve down the highway. Once the police arrived on scene, it was evident that multiple individuals not only witnessed the incident but also perceived it differently. All parties agreed that a dark colored van had been involved. However, the exact color and model were debated on. The speed of both vehicles also varied among us. The possible gender or race of the unknown driver varied drastically and offered police no help. One of the witnesses even suggested the truck driver had been at fault. I questioned if the others drivers were even describing the same accident I had just witnessed. Fortunately, the driver of the truck was not injured.
My personal experience is just a glimpse of how faulty eyewitness testimony can be. Since DNA testing became popular in the 90’s, 73% of 239 overturned convictions were based on eye witness testimony. Of those, 1/3 had two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. (Arkowitz & Lilienfeld, 2010) Those witnesses are not believed to be liars or storytellers. However, their reconstruction of a memory may not be completely accurate. The brain does not work as a video recorder recording our everyday lives. The memory is reconstructed each time we recall it. It is during this reconstruction phase that our memories can be influenced causing us to remember a situation differently than it may have actually happened.
Within the legal system, memories of eyewitnesses can be influenced by law enforcement, intentionally or unintentionally. This can be accomplished by selective wording, leading questions, or faulty line- ups. The mere stress of a crime can also alter an eyewitness’ account of what happened. This is especially true when weapons are involved. The witness may focus on the weapon and ignore other crucial details.
The above photo features two inmates. Five separate women positively identified the man on the left, Thomas Hanesworth, as their violent rapist. Hanesworth was convicted in 1984. In 2011, DNA proved the man on the right, Leon Davis, was in fact their attacker.
Eyewitness testimony has proved beneficial in several cases and should not be completely dismissed. A study completed by Yuille and Cutshall revealed that even after purposing being mislead, some eyewitnesses were still able to correctly recall a stressful situation. (“False Eyewitness | DiscoverMagazine.com”, 2012) However, jurors should be advised to not trust eyewitness testimony alone, but rather analyze all the evidence.
References
Arkowitz, H., & Lilienfeld, S. (2010). Do the “Eyes” Have It?.
False Eyewitness | DiscoverMagazine.com. (2012). Discover Magazine., http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/04-eyewitness
PHOTO: http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/04-eyewitness
It baffles me that the facts are available about the rates of misidentification and yet we still use this a reliably form of evidence in court. The Innocence Project estimates that is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven in over seventy percent of convictions overturned by DNA evidence. You would think since there is so much scrutiny with polygraph tests being admissible in court they would think of eyewitness testimony in the same light. Something that should be viewed on a case by case basis and with strict criteria being met. Such as having witness give and sign a confidence statement in their own words on how confident they are in identifying the suspect. That way if they only said I think this could be him it will not be presented as they knew without a doubt that was the offender. Additionally, providing double-blind lineups, ensuring “fillers” resemble the eyewitness’s description, and guaranteeing no leading terminology is given to the witness, and recording all identification procedures for later review (Innocence Project).
Eyewitness Misidentification. (n.d.). Retrieved March 11, 2018, from https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/