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

of only 0.20, thus it is clear that juror’s reliance on confidence as an indicator of accuracy is unfounded (Cutler & Penrod, 1989). Nevertheless, this perceived relationship can evidently effect the outcome of a case and whether or not it results in the conviction of the alleged offender (Cutler et al. 1995). To prove this, Loftus (1975) conducted a study involving 150 jurors divided into three groups. Each group was given the scenario of a crime surrounding a grocery store robbery and murder, however there were minor differences to each situation, including: within the first group’s scenario, no eye-witness was present; the second group had an eye-witness in their scenario who identified the suspect with confidence, however the defence called into question the evidence stating that the eye-witness was mistaken; the third group also had a confident eye-witness but was discredited by the defence as it was discovered that he had serious vision problems and therefore could not have witnessed the crime in detail. The results indicated that: 18% of group one participants found the defendant guilty with no eye-witness testimony; 72% of group two participants found the defendant guilty even though the eye-witness testimony was called into question; and 68% of group three participants found the defendant guilty even though the witness was discredited (Loftus, 1975). Therefore, this verifies that the correlation between confidence and accuracy is viewed by jurors as an important factor within a case and as a result significantly influences the verdict. With this in mind, it is recommended that the reliance that is put on eye-witness testimony should be limited and that jurors be made aware, through the use of expert testimony, of the factors that actually impact eye-witness testimony (Loftus & Schneider, 1987).

By referring to Loftus (1980), it is evident through one of her experiments, expert testimony is shown to reduce the amount of guilty verdicts of violent crime by 25%. Therefore, it is considered that the court should utilise expert testimony, to which the expert can attest the many factors that influence eye-witness testimony, thus removing the connotation that confidence indicates accuracy. Thus, it is believed that through implementing this strategy, eye-witness testimony will be improved within the criminal justice system.

Also within the scope of research pertaining to eye-witness testimony, is a concept known as system variables. These are defined as aspects of eye-witness testimony in which the criminal justice system can have an impact on, among these is line-up procedures (Wells et al. 2003). According to Wells et al (1998), whether it be photospreads or live line-ups, research has shown that certain methods utilised in the course of conducting line-up procedures are more likely to cause confusion and induce false identifications by eye-witnesses. By referring to both Wise et al. (2009) and Wells et al. (1998), it is apparent that factors such as whether the offender is even present in the line-up, the number of people in the line-up and a theory known as Relative Judgement Theory play an essential role in explaining how and why the process of line-up procedures hinders a witnesses ability to make an accurate identification. Relative Judgement Theory encompasses the two notions of: firstly, during a line-up where the suspects are presented together at one time, also known as a simultaneous line-up, eye-witnesses make a “relative judgement” when selecting the suspect. This means that the eye-witness selects their suspect based on comparing the participants of the line-up and choosing which resembles the offender the most, even if the offender is not present in the line-up (Wells et al. 1998). As a result of this comparison, the accuracy of eye-witness testimony is decreased. Secondly, during a line-up where the suspects appear individually, also known as a sequential line-ups, eye-witnesses can be more accurate in their identification as this allows them to individually study the suspect and makes comparisons between their appearance and memory, thus leading to an “absolute judgement” (Wise et al. 2009). A study was conducted by Wells et al (1998) in order to determine how inaccurate eye-witnesses can be whilst viewing a line-up. It involved a sample of 200 “eye-witnesses” viewing a simulated crime, then participating in a line-up where the culprit was either present or not present. It was further indicated to all “eye-witnesses” that the suspect may or may not be present in the line-up.

The results of this study were that in the line-up without the suspect, 68% of participants chose the wrong culprit. In the suspect-present line-up 21% of participants failed to make a decision, while 54% identified the culprit correctly. However it was noted that of these 54%, the majority:
“would simply have identified someone else if the culprit had not been present. This is the essence of what is meant by the relative judgement process; eyewitnesses tend to select whomever looks most like the perpetrator regardless of whether the actual perpetrator is in the line-up” (p. 615).
With these statistics in mind, it is evident that the procedures surrounding line-ups effect the accuracy of eye-witness identification and testimony. Therefore it is considered that line-up procedures need to be improved in order to enhance the accuracy of eye-witness testimony. Wells et al (1998) suggests four general principles in order to accomplish this, which include: firstly, the officer who supervises the line-up should not know who the suspected offender is; secondly, that the eye-witness should be made aware that the officer conducting the line-up does not know who the suspected offender is; thirdly, “the suspect should not stand out in the line-up or photo-spread as being different from the distractors based on the eyewitness's previous description of the culprit or based on other factors that would draw extra attention to the suspect” (p.634); Lastly, “a clear statement should be taken from the eyewitness at the time of the identification and prior to any feedback as to his or her confidence that the identified person is the actual culprit” (p. 635). By incorporating these four principles, it is considered that the accuracy of eye-witness testimony will improve.

Another system variable which effects the accuracy of eye-witness identification and testimony is the process of police interviewing of the witness.

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,

respectively.

Although all these verbs describe two objects coming into contact with each other, when applied within the question, they vary in their interpretation. As a result, these findings suggest and prove that certain words and leading questions can induce a change in memory and therefore effect eye-witness testimony. In comparison to the concept of suggestibility is the idea of the Misinformation Effect. This is the notion that due to the fact eyewitness memory is reconstructive, it can be impressionable and thus post-crime information from police and the media being misleading, can significantly impact on the witness’s ability to give an accurate testimony (Wise et al. 2009). A study conducted by Loftus (1987) examined how incorrect information can affect the recall of eye-witness testimony. It involved two groups of participants, one control group and one manipulated group, viewing a film of a car accident. The control group participants were then asked “How fast was the car going?” However the manipulated group participants were asked the question “How fast was the car going as it passed the barn?” The barn, being fabricated, was the erroneous information given to the participants and thus proved to have a significant effect on the results. The findings were that when asked again one week later whether they had seen the barn, 17.3% of participants in the manipulated group said yes, compared to only 3% of participants in the control group, therefore proving that misleading information can alter memory (Loftus, 1987). In order to prevent the concepts of suggestibility and the Misinformation Effect from occurring it is considered that certain practices should be implemented. For instance, Venter et al. (2005) and Loftus (1987) both suggest that within police interviewing techniques, “open-ended questions” should be utilised. This allows for the witness to tell their version of events through the recall of their own memory and therefore does not put pressure on the witness to answer restrictive questions. Therefore through applying this suggestion of altering questioning techniques utilised by police, it is apparent that the accuracy of eye-witness testimony can increase.