Delwin Foxworth Case Study

In 2000, Delwin Foxworth was beaten and set on fire outside of his North Chicago home. Foxworth survived the attack but died two years later in a nursing home. Marvin Williford was arrested and convicted for the murder in 2004 and was given an 80 year life sentence in prison. Williford’s defense attorney David Owens is requesting a retrial for the case because of the absence of Williford’s DNA profile in the DNA samples that were taken from the crime scene. Additionally Owens makes the argument that the eye witness testimony of a woman who was present during the attack was unreliable. The woman states that she clearly saw Williford and two other assailants commit the crime, but Owens and Geoffrey Loftus, a professor of psychology at the University

One of the key points that are point out in this case is that the eyewitness had variables that may have affected her memory causing her to point Williford as the culprit. One of these variables was weapon focus and its believed that the eyewitness focused more on the culprit’s weapon in this case it was a board used to beat and the gas used to set Foxworth on fire. The reason behind this is probably because of the unusualness of the weapons used in this attack thus causing the witness to focus more on the weapon than the culprit. Another argument that is being made in the validity of the eyewitness testimony is that she was exposed to information after the attack from newspaper causing the post-information effect. The cause of the effect in this case were that newspapers published pictures of the suspect which may have caused the witness to form false memories. It was also said that the eyewitness was shown a picture of Williford before picking him out of a photo array which is another potential way for the witness to form false memories associated with the picture. An additional point that’s made is because there were two other people involved in the attack that it would divert the attention of the eyewitness, thus causing her to remember fewer details about the culprits face. Despite all these arguments the witness stays with her choice of

The DNA evidence says that Williford was not at the house when the attack took place while the eyewitness testimony says he was there and was taking part in the attack on Foxworth. I personally believe that Williford does deserve a retrial because now knowing how eyewitness testimony can be changed through influences that witness is not even aware of it is very possible that she may have remembered incorrectly. However, I am not saying that Williford is innocent and that both the DNA evidence and the eyewitness testimony needs to be revaluated to make sure nothing interfered that would cause the results to skew. That includes taking into consideration of the factors I described earlier to see if the eyewitness testimony can be reliable. Outside of this case I believe that we need more information should be shared with the public to warn of these factors if they ever become a witness to a crime to avoid prosecuting innocents. Additionally we need to train officers to avoid telling or showing anything to a witness that may change their memories and give a false testimony. In conclusion Williford should get a retrial and more evidence needs to be brought in and old evidence should be revaluated to make sure its accurate and that information needs to shared with the public and law enforcement about the factors that may cause false memories so