Based on the eyewitness evidence of a single witness, who recognised Anthony Porter in a police lineup, Porter was charged with and found guilty of the 1982 murders of two adolescents in Chicago’s Washington Park area. William Taylor, the witness, claimed to have seen Porter close to the crime scene during the time of the murders.
Taylor’s testimony at trial, which was crucial to the prosecution’s case against Porter, stated that he was “100%” positive that Porter was the murderer. Taylor’s identification of Porter, however, may have been influenced by a number of errors in the eyewitness identification process.
For instance, Porter was the only person in the lineup who fit the description of the suspect given to Taylor by police, making the lineup suspicious when Taylor took part in it. Furthermore, Taylor’s identification may have been influenced by the police having previously given him a picture of Porter.
Also, several other witnesses who saw the murderer and gave differing descriptions of him disputed Taylor’s identification of Porter. Notwithstanding these concerns, Porter was found guilty and given the death penalty mainly due to Taylor’s allegations.
Porter’s case sends a strong message against overly relying on eyewitness testimony, particularly when the identification process is faulty or defective. Eyewitnesses frequently assume they are naming the right person, but there are several things that can affect their memory, such as stress, fear, and suggestions (Loftus & Palmer, 1974). So, whenever possible, other pieces of evidence should be used to support and carefully assess eyewitness testimony.
Elizabeth Loftus’s research on eyewitness memory is highly relevant to cases like Anthony Porter’s. Loftus has shown through her experiments that eyewitness testimony is not always reliable, which is why it is very important to consider using the evidence in her research to create a more fair criminal justice system.
refrences:
Bright, S. B. (2002). Race, poverty, the death penalty, and the responsibility of the legal profession. Seattle J. Soc. Just., 1, 73.
Loftus, E.L., & Palmer, J.C. (1974). Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13. 585-589.
I remember a case that involved a military member and was turned into a movie (Innocent Victims). The basis of this case was a guy murdered a woman and her to children as well as sexually assaulted the woman. He was picked out of a lineup as the police were coaxing the witness to look very good at the suspects. The witness also picked out his car after the cops were telling him to look very close as they drove through a parking lot basically slowing down next to the defendants car. Throughout the case the witness was unsure if he really saw the suspect, however due to pressure continued with the story. Timothy Hennis was convicted of the crimes and sent to death row.
During a retrial, a guy that could be mistaken as his was introduced. The witness recanted and with the new evidence he was set free. The kicker of this case is he was convicted about 20 year later and now is in military custody awaiting execution. Did the eyewitness actually make a mistake? Maybe, but having been convicted a second time seems to back up the eyewitness accounts.
There are still many cases in which the defendant is found guilty of a crime they really did not commit due to mistaken accounts of eyewitnesses (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2023). There is at least some evidence to this as seen by an experiment conducted by Elizabeth Lofthus. She had two mock trials one which no eyewitness was brought in and the other with an eyewitness. The results were “without an eyewitness only 18 percent of the defendants were found guilty, while with an eyewitness 72 percent of defendants were found guilty” (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2023).
My feeling is it is better to have an eyewitness as I think that they are vital to a case for the prosecutor. Without out one jurors are solely relying on evidence presented without really knowing if the person could have been at the seen of the crime. More often than not the eyewitness accounts are going to be correct. I don’t want to see anyone innocent go to jail, however eyewitness accounts must still be taken seriously.
Reference
Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2023). “BRIA 13 3 c How Reliable Are Eyewitnesses”?
Retrieved March 5, 2023 from: https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-3-c-how-reliable-are-eyewitnesses.
It seems a bit contradictory that with all of the evidence showing that mistaken identity in criminal cases that when crimes happen, there is an outreach for witnesses. While I understand the underlying reason is to assist in capturing the criminal, if it merely increases the chances of accusing the wrong person, maybe it is time to implement other methods to catch the bad guys. I am stunned that in this day and age where technology is so relevant, so accessible that there isn’t video coverage of everything at all times. (Or perhaps there is but that is kept under wraps.) Nevertheless, I am unsure as to why we have sharp, precise images from Mars, but when someone steals something from my local Walmart, the image is always grainy, blurry, and is just about as helpful as a drawing of the perpetrator by a two-year-old. I am completely aware that I am among the minority in thinking that privacy should be minimized as opposed to maximized. Personally, I’m not doing anything that would merit concern of others knowing what I am doing, and I think this would significantly reduce crime. Again, I understand that I am an outlier in my opinion and for now, we will have to continue to rely on eyewitness accounts to assist in catching perpetrators.
With that being said, there are a plethora of reasons that eyewitness accounts are unreliable, especially in consideration of criminal cases. It could be a simple mistake, coercion from law enforcement, an effort to appease, the possibilities are bountiful. According to a study published as to why eyewitnesses fail speak to a real court case against a man named Uriah Courtney. The study determines three primary reasons it is assumed the eyewitnesses were incorrect in their determination of the criminal. The first reason is that visual uncertainty can result in bias, and preconceived notions or assumptions of others could result in choosing the wrong person. Secondly, the lineup administrator was not blind to the status of the lineup participants. Because of this, it is possible that the administrator conveyed nonverbal cues to the witnesses that could lead to a false identification. Lastly, “own race” bias was in play here. This occurs because people can experience more challenges differentiation between those that are of a different race from themselves (Albright, 2017). These are just a few reasons that out of so many more that could constitute an incorrect accusation and send an innocent person to jail. While I like the idea of lack of privacy to catch criminals, it is also a way to keep others safe and minimize inaccurate eyewitness statements and erroneous accusations.
Reference
Albright TD. Why eyewitnesses fail. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jul 25;114(30):7758-7764. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1706891114. PMID: 28739937; PMCID: PMC5544328.