Case Study Of Eye Believe What Eye Saw

Eye Believe What Eye Saw

Andre Hatchett was convicted of murder in 1991. However, there was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime. Only a single eyewitness said that he saw Hatchett attack the women in a park. During the trial, the eyewitness had testified and Andre Hatchett was charged with murder and was put in jail for 25 years. But 25 years into his sentence it was found that he was wrongly convicted and the eyewitness had testified for having a burglary charge dropped against him. An eyewitness was responsible for putting Hatchet in jail. Eyewitnesses are able to put a suspect behind bars for simple misdemeanors to serious felonies. Eyewitnesses can be incorrect which can lead to the wrong people being put in jail. Eyewitness’s memories

Among other provisions, SB 923 would call on authorities to instruct eyewitnesses that the perpetrator may or may not be included in the lineup; encourage the use of non-suspect "fillers" in lineups that match witness descriptions of perpetrators and ensure suspects don't stand out; and have the entire identification procedure videotaped,” (Hemmelgarn). This would provide some legislation in place that would hold eyewitnesses to some standards rather than anybody claiming that what they saw was correct. In the early to the middle of the 16th century, an Italian Historian Francesco Guiccardini said that people who release false information usually release it later on rather than earlier, this is important about eyewitnesses as eyewitness should share their information as soon as possible for it to remain as credible as possible. “Guiccardini's caution - ‘Documents are rarely falsified at the start. It is usually done later, as occasion or necessity dictates’ - suggests one advantage enjoyed by the eye witness historian: he has the chance of seeing evidence before it is cooked. Probably Guiccardini's warning has less application in the xerox age, where the ease of immediate duplication complicates the task of subsequent falsification,” (Schlesinger). If information from eyewitnesses comes out later than the more of a chance the brain would have to recreate the memory since memory is recreated every time it is thought of rather than set in stone in the brain. Eyewitness testimony can be correct but can be changed, trials in which the defendant can be put into jail for a longer period of time or on death row shouldn’t be allowed until