The Importance Of Eyewitness Evidence

Eyewitness evidence is critical for solving a crime, and can often be the main source of evidence in determining who the perpetrator is. However, it is estimated that every year, approximately 4,500 wrongful convictions have happened in the United States alone, based on inaccurate or mistaken eyewitness testimonies. Studies have consistently shown that the leading cause for wrongful convictions is invalid eyewitness testimonies, as this has been a major source of convicting innocent people, who have been later proven innocent by forensic DNA.
The eyewitness identification process typically involves selecting the alleged perpetrator from a police lineup, though it can also be based upon police sketches and other methods. Not long after

the suspect has been chosen, the eyewitness is asked to make a formal statement confirming what and who they saw. Then, at the trial, which sometimes can be years later, the eyewitnesses usually testify in court. However memories can fade as time progresses, altering the eyewitnesses testimony.
Line-ups are a huge factor is false identification. The lineups should be using the same form of “double-blind” testing, which is used to make scientific tests. First, in a line up, the police officer administrating the lineup should be involved. He or she should be able to tell the witness that the perpetrator may or may not contain the suspect, and the investigation will move on either way. Second, the confidence levels of the eyewitness should be examined. Research has proven that a eyewitness who is more confident in the testimonies is more accurate than an eyewitness who is less confident in what they experienced. Thirdly, the judge and the juror should be well educated on the documented failing or police lineup. This can alter the opinion of the judge and jurors, so they know that the police lineup may not be 100 percent accurate. Lastly, Judges and jurors need to be educated about how eyewitnesses testimonies can be alter by other factors. For example, a lawyer asking you if you could smell the exhaust from the car, you are able to recall the smells, tastes, and happing’s that may or may not have been true for the things that have previously happened in your life.
Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, and her colleague, Jacqueline Pickrell, gave subjects written “memories” of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction and it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when they were between age four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.
With this all said, it could show how an eyewitness testimonies can be unreliable and even inaccurate, showing that testimonies should be excluded from evidence in a trial.