Eyewitness Testimony
I recently learned about a man that spent nearly 3 decades in prison for a crime he did not commit. In 1994, Lamar Johnson was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Marcus Boyd. The only evidence against him was the eyewitness testimony of Greg Elking. On October 30, 1994, Marcus Boyd was shot to death on his porch in St. Louis, Missouri by two men wearing ski masks. The only witness was on the porch with him at the time of the incident.
Eyewitness testimonies may be the only evidence in a criminal case. Because of this an individual may be sentenced in court merely by what someone saw (or thought they saw). No other evidence is needed if a jury alone decides that the eyewitness statement is enough to convict the person.
In the case of Lamar Johnson, he was convicted on an eyewitness testimony only. A jury found him guilty of the murder of Marcus Boyd based off the testimony of one single individual. How is this possible in our judicial system? How without any evidence other than what someone says be enough to take the freedom away from an individual?
“Eyewitnesses can provide very compelling legal testimony, but rather than recording experiences flawlessly, their memories are susceptible to a variety of errors and biases. They (like the rest of us) can make errors in remembering specific details and can even remember whole events that did not actually happen.” (Laney, C. & Loftus, E. F. 2023)
Greg Elking testified that Lamar Johnson was one of the individuals present that murdered Marcus Boyd. He made a positive identification of this man in a lineup presented to him by the police. How could anyone possibly make an accurate identification of someone wearing a ski mask? The only part of their body if they were wearing ski masks, gloves, and full body covering clothes, would be their eyes? The truth was according to Greg Elking, is that the police detective investigating the case convinced Greg Elking that Lamar Johnson was the one that committed the murder. With contamination of our memory by other sources, we are susceptible to construing the actual memory of what exactly happened in the event we try to recall. With this susceptibility in mind, how is it enough to convict a man to 28 years in prison? Is there something else that should change in our judicial system to prevent these occurrences from happening? I do believe that eyewitness testimonies can be true a lot of the time, but I also believe that they can be construed as is in the case of Lamar Johnson.
Works Cited:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lamar-johnson-marcus-boyd-murder-missouri-exonerated-48-hours/
https://nypost.com/2023/02/15/lamar-johnson-freed-28-years-after-wrongful-murder-verdict/
Good afternoon,
I heard about this tragedy, and I must say I was truly hurt when I heard about what happened. I agree with you that there should be changes in the judicial system. It’s truly not fair that a person can claim they can identify someone even though like you said, “they were wearing a ski mask”. It makes me wonder do you think the people in the judicial system are aware how biased one can be with finding a person in a line up? Or do you think they are just looking to pin a murder on whomever was there at the wrong place at the wrong time? As I think about injustice, there must be change because no one should have to go to jail for a murder they may not have committed. There should be more evidence to prosecute someone for a murder. I really enjoyed reading your entry about your wonderful job on this topic. There truly needs to be change.