A study conducted at the Ohio State University analyzed numerous wrongful conviction cases and found that roughly 52% of these errors stemmed from inaccuracies in eyewitness identification (Hall and Ostrom, 1975). On the morning of May 7, 2000, Mary Ann Stephens and her husband James Stephens were walking back to their motel room, subsequently eating breakfast. Outside of their motel, the Ramada Inn located in Jacksonville, Florida, the couple was robbed at gunpoint which evolved into the murder of Mary Ann Stephens. Mr. Stephens described the suspect to be a six foot tall, skinny, black male, estimated to be 20-25 years old; the suspect was wearing dark shorts, an unknown shirt, and a hat. Coincidentally, Brenton Butler, a black male, was …show more content…
As previously highlighted, there are various theories that contribute to misidentification, many of which are applicable to this particular case. Factors such as improper police procedures, cross-race bias, weapon focus, false confessions, and juveniles being more susceptible to plea deals all played a role in Butler’s prosecution. Officers told Brenton Butler that the more he proclaimed his innocence, the more severe the repercussions would be. Butler testified that Detective Glover threatened him every ten seconds that he did not confess. Butler was also punched in the face while being interrogated, and called the N word. After 12 hours in the interrogation room, Butler provided a compliant and voluntary false confession. This false confession could have been avoided if proper investigation and interrogation tactics were used, and police did not physically assault Brenton Butler. Rather than simply interviewing Butler to learn more information about the crime, detectives sought to gain a confession. Before the interrogation even began, they believed Brenton Butler was …show more content…
2023. The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of Vulnerability of juveniles to false confessions. Vulnerability of Juveniles to False Confessions. https://doi.org/10.22371/02.2023.006 Hall, D.F., & Ostrom, T.M. Accuracy of eyewitness identification after biasing or unbiased instructions. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University, 1975. Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990). Weapon Focus, Arousal, and Eyewitness Memory: Attention Must Be Paid. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062971 Wan, L., Crookes, K., Dawel, A., Pidcock, M., Hall, A., & McKone, E. (2017). Face-blindness for other-race faces: Individual differences in other-race recognition impairments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000249 Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, M. J., & Yarmey, A. L. (1996). Accuracy of eyewitness identification in showups and lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 20(4), 459–477.
Summary of the Case On August 1987, Donald Butler opened a store in Winnipeg, Manitoba, called the “Avenue Boutique”. In this store, Butler sold and rented pornographic publications that were considered “hard core” and sexual paraphernalia. A couple weeks later, the City of Winnipeg Police searched and seized Butler’s sexually explicit materials lawfully. From this, Butler was charged with 173 counts under s. 163 of the Criminal Code. These charges included s. 163(1)(a) which criminalizes the distribution and the possession for distribution of obscene materials, as wells s. 163(2)(a) for selling and exposing obscene material to the public.
On 1997 four men were convicted of the rape and murder of Michelle Basko. The four men were Joe Dick, Daniel Williams, Eric Wilson, and Derek Tice. Detective Robert Ford believed that the four U.S. navy men were all guilty of the crime. One of the victim’s friend claimed that Daniel Williams, was Michelle Basko’s murderer. Based on the information provided by Basko’s friend, Ford suspected that William was guilty. With that, the series of harsh interrogations led by detective Robert Ford began. Detective Ford began his interrogatories with a label that Williams is the suspect. The psychological abuse he used, led Williams to make a false confession. After closing the case, the DNA results did not match the one in the crime scene. Instead of releasing Williams, it was believed that Joe
On May 7th 2000, fifteen year old Brenton Butler was accused of the murder of Mary Ann Stephens, who had been fatally shot in the head while walking down a breezeway of a hotel with her husband. Two and a half hours later, Butler is seen walking a mile away from where the incident occurred, and is picked up by the police because he fit the description of the individual who shot Mary Ann Stephens. However, the only characteristic of the description that Butler featured was the color of his skin. Police then brought Butler to the scene of the crime in order for Mary Ann Stephens’s husband, James Stephens, to confirm whether or not Butler was the individual who had shot his wife. Almost immediately, Stephens identifies Butler as his wife’s killer.
...idence in the conviction of Melanie McGuire. According to Champod (2004), Beth Dunton may have skipped important steps necessary to collecting fingerprints from the trash bags. If fingerprints had been collected from the trash bags, this could have cleared Melanie or added to the mountain of evidence against her. According to Rossmo (2009), all of the circumstantial evidence gathered by investigators could have been declared coincidental. There was no “smoking gun” to convict Melanie. Despite possible errors, the investigative team was successful in remaining free of bias being that the evidence collected by two different investigative teams led to Melanie McGuire as the suspect and ultimately to her conviction. Human error is inevitable while conducting investigation, but ultimately a jury of peers found Melanie McGuire guilty of the alleged crimes (Glatt, 2008).
This paper will consider eye witness testimony and its place in convicting accused criminals. Psychology online (2013) defines “eye witness testimony” as a statement from a person who has witnessed a crime, and is capable of communicating what they have seen, to a court of law under oath. Eye witness testimonies are used to convict accused criminals due to the first hand nature of the eye witnesses’ observations. There are however many faults within this system of identification. Characteristics of the crime is the first issue that will be discussed in this paper, and the flaws that have been identified. The second issue to be discussed will be the stress impact and the inability to correctly identify the accused in a violent or weapon focused crime. The third issue to be discussed is inter racial identification and the problems faced when this becomes a prominent issue. The fourth issue will be time lapse, meaning, the time between the crime and the eye witness making a statement and how the memory can be misconstrued in this time frame. To follow this will be the issue of how much trust jurors-who have no legal training-put on to the eye witness testimony, which may be faltered. This paper references the works of primarily Wells and Olsen (2003) and Rodin (1987) and Schmechel et al. (2006) it will be argued that eye witness testimony is not always accurate, due to many features; inter racial identification, characteristics of the crime, response latency, and line up procedures therefore this paper will confirm that eyewitness testimonies should not be utilised in the criminal ju...
In the United States of America, our justice system is here to serve and protect people of the world. Unfortunately, some are able get away with crimes and others are fairly judged. This often happens because their is nothing proving a clear path of innocence or guilt. In the book Monster and the documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning, this can be demonstrated throughout. Based on the information given, the verdict of Steve Harmon seems to be incorrect while the verdict of Brenton Butler seems to be correct.
(Kennedy & Haygood, 1992; Williams & Loftus, 1994), which is worrying considering the growing and substantial body of evidence from laboratory studies, field studies, and the criminal justice system supporting the conclusion that eyewitnesses frequently make mistakes (Cutler & Penrod, 1995; Huff, 1987; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998). According to a number of studies, eyewitness misidentifications are the most common cause of wrongful convictions (Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Wells et al., 1998; Yarmey, 2003) and, through the use of forensic DNA testing, have been found to account for more convictions of innocent individuals than all other factors combined (Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006).
During the identification and prosecution of a suspect, eyewitnesses are the most important. Eyewitness testimony needs to be reliable as it can have serious implications to the perceived guilt or innocence of a defendant. Unfortunately, the reliability of eyewitness testimony is questionable because there is a high number of eyewitness misidentification. Rattner (1988) studied 205 cases and concluded that eyewitness misidentification was the factor most often associated with wrongful conviction (52%). Eyewitness testimony can be affected by many factors. A substantial literature demonstrates own group biases in eyewitness testimony. For example, the own-race bias, in which people are better at recognizing faces of their own race versus another
Butler was one of many to be accused of a crime he didn’t commit. In 1993, a woman got
For this book report, I decided to read Hugo Münsterberg's On the Witness Stand. This book contains essays on psychology and crime and eyewitness testimony. Today this book is used as a reference for many issues in forensic psychology. For this report, I focused on two chapters of the book: Illusions and the Memory of the Witness. I am going to first summarize the two chapters I read then talk about what was going on at the time this book was written. I will then report some of the research in the book, and finish with my opinion on how this book has contributed to the literature and how it relates to the current knowledge of forensic psychology.
Another factor associated with wrongful convictions is eyewitness misidentification. The Innocence Project identifies eyewitness misidentification as the single most important factor leading to wrongful convictions. Eyewitness misidentification is often an error due to witnesses being under high pressure, witnesses focusing on the weapon more than the offender, and police procedures when receiving an identification statement from a victim. A study
Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.
The Ohio Criminal Justice survey states that 1 out of 200 felony criminal cases is a wrongful conviction (Dauphinais et al., 2007). According to Dauphinais et al. (2007), Dripps said that eyewitness error is a huge factor in cases of wrong convictions. A study conducted in 1987 indicated that in roughly 80,000 criminal cases, eyewitness error was the only sole evidence against the defendant (Dauphinais et al., 2007).
There has been considerable debate worldwide, regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system. Particularly, arguments have surrounded wrongful convictions that have resulted from incorrect eyewitness evidence (Areh, 2011; Howitt, 2012; Nelson, Laney, Bowman-Fowler, Knowles, Davis & Loftus, 2011). The purpose of this essay is to consider psychological research about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and its placement in the criminal justice system. Firstly, this essay will define how eyewitnesses and their testimonies are used within the criminal justice system and the current debate surrounding its usage. Secondly, the impact of post-identification feedback will be used to show the affect on the confidence of a witness. Thirdly, studies around gender related differences will show how a witnesses gender can affect memory recall and accuracy. Fourthly, empirical studies will be used to highlight how a psychological experience called change blindness can cause mistakes in eyewitness identification. Finally, the effect of cross-examination will be used to explore the impact on eyewitness accuracy. It will be argued, that eyewitness testimony is not accurate and highly subjective, therefore, the criminal justice system must reduce the impact that eyewitness testimony is allowed to have. Developing better policies and procedures to avoid wrongful convictions by misled judges and jury members can do this.
Eyewitness testimony is especially vulnerable to error when the question is misleading or when there’s a difference in ethnicity. However, using an eyewitness as a source of evidence can be risky and is rarely 100% accurate. This can be proven by the theory of the possibility of false memory formation and the question of whether or not a memory can lie. For instance, a group of students saw the face of a young man with straight hair, then heard a description of the face supposedly written by another witness, one that wrongly mentioned light, curly hair. When they reconstructed the face using a kit of facial features, a third of their reconstructions contained the misleading detail, whereas only 5 percent contained it when curly hair was not mentioned (Page 359). This situation shows how misleading information from other sources can be profoundly altered.