Are Eyewitness Testimony Acurate?

Cognitive psychologist, Elizabeth Loftus explains that, in 1970, Edmond D. Jackson was convicted of the murder of a New York bartender. The murder took place while fifty customers scrambled for cover. Loftus stated, “The subsequent investigation focused on four witnesses who looked at numerous mug shots and said one resembled the gunman” (Loftus xi). Later the defendant was convicted solely because these witnesses, who had seen the gunman in the bar for only a few seconds, had identified him. While in prison, Jackson prayed and prayed for his release–prayers which were not answered for nearly eight years. In August of 1978, the United States Court of Appeals set aside Jackson’s conviction. With great appreciation, Loftus explained that, “The court found that the eyewitness testimony presented by the prosecution was so tainted by the suggestive procedures of the police investigators that its admission into evidence against Jackson constituted a denial of due process” (Loftus xi).

Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. The Innocence Project uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that, “Seventy three percent of the two hundred thirty nine convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony” (Loftus xi). One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong? This paper will identify a theoretical framework that views eyewitness testimony ...

... middle of paper ...

...eaning” (Wade 904). In other words, people store information in the way that makes the most sense to them.

Furthermore, Wade introduces the idea that an eyewitness’s concentration is solely on the weapon that the perpetrator is using. “In a crime where a weapon is involved, it is not unusual for a witness to be able to describe the weapon in much more detail than the person holding it” (Wade 904). In this reference, Wade is recognizing that crimes that involve weapons typically have less people who remember the details enough to be considered an accurate witness.

To conclude, researchers use a three-stage process that proves eyewitness testimony is not an ideal situation. A series of danger signals during eyewitness identification proves that eyewitnesses are not necessarily accurate and lastly that many psychological factors can affect eyewitness testimony.