Eyewitness Testimony

Within the criminal justice system, it is evident that jurors rely heavily on eye-witness testimony in determining the guilt of a suspect. Psychological research in relation to this issue primarily focuses on the correlation between confidence and accuracy and in doing so asserts that jurors perceive that the more confident a witness appears, the more likely they are to be accurate in their testimony (Cutler & Penrod, 1995). By corroborating both Wise et al. (2009) and Cutler et al. (1995), it is evident that of all the factors which impact on the jury in relation to eye-witness testimony, eye-witness confidence is the most significant in influencing a juror’s verdict. However, this relationship is recorded as obtaining a correlational value

According to Loftus (1975), “Police undoubtedly use leading questions…when they are interrogating witnesses to a crime” (p. 190) and in utilising leading questions new information can be suggested that modifies one’s recall ability, this concept is also known as suggestibility. As a result of suggestibility, witnesses can then be convinced to make a false testimony within both the interview and within the court (Venter & Louw, 2005). A study conducted by Loftus (1975) demonstrated the idea of suggestibility through showing 45 participants films of car collisions, then asking the question: “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” Through randomised selection, various groups of participants were asked the same question except that the word “hit” was replaced with: “smashed”; “collided”; “bumped”, or “contacted”. The results, of the study indicated that participants asked the question with the verb “smashed” estimated the car was travelling at 40.8 miles per hour. However, when asked with the verbs “collided”, “bumped”, “hit” and “contacted”, participants approximated that the car was travelling at 39.3, 38.1, 34, and 31.8 miles per hour,