Eyewitnesses are used in criminal cases across the country every single day. An eyewitness testimony is an individual who was present at the crime and is giving their rendition of what happened in court before the judge, jury, and lawyers. They are questioned and made to retell their experiences of what happened. Their eyewitness accounts can be used to identify criminals as well as provide details of a crime. However, how accurate are these memories?
Since 2012, there have been 341 people exonerated in the US through the use of DNA evidence. 75% of these cases had involved an eyewitness testimony in their conviction (Goldstein p. 231). The worrisome part of this fact is that there are so many misconceptions about how memory works and it is leading to wrongful convictions and innocent people spending years in prison. Several studies have been conducted where individuals watch videos of crimes or staged crimes and are asked to identify the criminal from a photo line up. One of the studies involved participants watching a security camera footage where the gunman was in frame for approximately eight seconds. The participants were then given several photos and asked to select the perpetrator. They all chose a photo of who they thought the gunman was even though none of the photos were actually of him (Goldstein p 232). This shows how difficult it can be to be able to accurately and correctly identify someone that you see very quickly in recorded footage. This also does not even take into account the emotions that one would experience when witnessing a crime happen in real time in front of them. Fear, adrenaline, anxiety, and any other emotion could cloud someone’s judgement and make it more difficult for them to recount what they saw at a later time when they are removed from the situation.
Another factor that could tamper with the validity of an eyewitness testimony is familiarity. In a case of robbery described in the textbook, a railroad employee incorrectly identified a bystander as the robber simply because he said he ‘looked familiar’ (Goldstein p. 232). This could have led to the arrest of someone who was innocent simply because someone associated the familiarity of an individuals face with them being the perpetrator of a crime. Finally, another factor is error due to suggestion. There could be holes in an eyewitnesses memory and certain phrasing of questions or comments could persuade an eyewitness to fill in those gaps with potentially fabricated details. This is often why we hear objections to ‘leading questions’ in the courtroom meaning that the question could be leading the witness to convey information that would benefit the prosecution or defense, and is not entirely accurate.
A tragic example of how eyewitness testimonies cannot always be trusted is the case of Troy Davis. Troy was sentenced to death in Georgia and charged with the murder of an off duty police officer named Mark MacPhail. Troy claimed he was innocent for two decades while he awaited execution on death row. His trial was determined solely by eyewitness accounts and testimony, however in the time between his sentencing and his execution there were seven of the nine eyewitnesses who recanted their testimonies. Their testimonies claimed that they had witnessed Davis as the gunman, however they later stated that their testimony was coerced by police. This unfortunate occurrence resulted in the death of an innocent man and is just one of hundreds examples of false eyewitness memories and testimonies (FacingSouth).
References:
Sturgis, Sue, and Sue Sturgis @sue_sturgis Sue is the editorial director of Facing South and the Institute for Southern Studies. Email Sue. “Troy Davis Case Shows Need for Eyewitness Identification Reform.” Facing South, 9 June 2016, https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/troy-davis-case-shows-need-for-eyewitness-identification-reform.html.
Goldstein, E. B. (2011). Cognitive psychology: connecting mind, research, and everyday experience. Cengage Learning.