Eyewitness Testimony Analysis
Eyewitness testimony or the testimonies given by eyewitnesses are often times used as evidence in court. A person who has seen a crime occur, mentions their account of what happened during the time a crime was committed. Typically, when people think of eyewitnesses, they think of adults as playing that role, but children also play an important part and serve as eyewitnesses as well. The testimonies given by the adult eyewitnesses and children eyewitnesses for many reasons, are problematic at times. Eyewitness testimony is important because sometimes there is not always physical evidence that is available to use, but there may be a person who witnessed what was going on in that situation. Because they may be considered evidence, they are important
…show more content…
to the court, and often times they are relied on (Smalarz & Wells, 2009, p.194). In instances, many instances eyewitnesses are needed in crimes such as assault, robbery, and drive-by shooting etc., (Smalarz & Wells, 2009, p.194). The authors hope that the judges and lawyers are more informed on how to identify reliable eyewitness testimonies and those that are not. The authors point that 75% of wrongful convictions were all because of faulty eyewitness testimony, and this was discovered through DNA testing (Smalarz & Wells, 2009 p.194). This shows us that eyewitness testimony is really important because often times they are there when a crime occurs. There insight, if accurate, which is not always the case, would be a big help if it was accurate. Sometimes because there isn’t any physical evidence, they are relied on, and since DNA testing has become more popular this displays how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be.
There are many factors that play a role in the effectiveness of eyewitnesses. In Box 10.6, (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009, p.241) mentit on 24 factors affecting eyewitness testimony including, which include, drunkenness, time, weapon focus, lineups, words, etc. If a person is drunk, for example, that affects their ability to describe people and incidents that occurred (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009, p.241). Sometimes a witness may perceive an event to happen in more or less time than it actually occurred, in cases where weapons are involved a person is more focused on the weapon than who was actually using the weapon, and the way questions are worded to the eyewitness may affect their responses , according to (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009, p.241). Also, depending on the way in which police officers instruct eyewitnesses during lineups, will affect who the eyewitness will choose as the criminal (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009, p.241). This evidence shows that there is conflict with eyewitness testimonies, as anything from a person, place, or thing can affect their judgements, which will determine the outcome of how reliable they are. Memory plays a large role in eyewitness testimony, as they are to recall events that occurred.
Elizabeth Loftus knows the value of memory, as she serves as an expert witness on memory. In Evidence-based justice: Corrupted memory, Moheb speaks about Elizabeth Loftus as an expert witness, and details factors that effects a person’s memory (Moheb, 2013, p.268). Loftus states that memory is easily influenced (Moheb, 2013, p.269). According to Loftus, it is more difficult to identify someone who is a different race than the one they are (Moheb, 2013, p.269). She played as an expert witness in a case where a man was trying to rape a woman (Moheb, 2013, p.269). The rapist fled away, and the victim described the man to the police. She identified a man whose car had broken down on the street, as the criminal (Moheb, 2013, p.269). He fit some of the descriptions of the man that the victim was describing. Because Loftus was able to serve as an expert witness, and explained that the woman was in a stressful situation, an innocent person was able to walk freely (Moheb, 2013, p.269). As an expert witness she points out that or memories are not “recordings of actual events.” Loftus is trying to have a policy passed, that jurors are to be informed of the faultiness of eyewitness testimonies (Moheb, 2013,
p.268).
Loftus was curious to see if one can install lies in one heads, and see if that person can believe that it really happened (Moheb, 2013, p.270). In Loftus’ mall study, Loftus gathered dozens of people in a mall, and with the help of their family members, told them that four incidents occurred to them, and one of them- that they were lost in a mall as a child- was a lie (Moheb, 2013, 270) . 25% of those people believed the lie (Moheb, 2013, p.270). This shows that if something or someone is easily influenced, that it is not consistent, nor will it always remain the same. She states that when someone is stressed and has fear, that will also affect their memories. Because a person is not used to that person, and seeing them everyday, they are more likely to make mistakes when trying to identify a person. Loftus’ mall study shows that words have power, and if someone is told something they may believe it. This is all the more proof to display that eyewitness testimony is problematic.
The Troy Davis case is an example that displays how problematic eyewitness testimonies from adults can be. According to (the NAACP, n.d), The Troy Davis case occurred on August 19th, 1989. During the time of the incident there were many people standing outside of a fast food restaurant; those people included a man named Sylvester Cole, Troy Davis, and a homeless man (the NAACP, n.d). According to (the NAACP, n.d) , Sylvester Cole attacked the homeless man on his head with a gun, after demanding alcohol from him (the NAACP, n.d). When a security guard came to assess the situation, Cole shot and killed the white security guard, and later blamed it on Troy Davis, who was eventually put to death in 2011(the NAACP, n.d). In 2010, one witness, Benjamin Gordon, confessed that he saw his cousin, Sylvester Cole commit the crime (the NAACP, n.d) . He feared that his family would criticize him if he testified against his own family member, so he kept quiet for 21 years. (the NAACP, n.d). He also feared that Cole would try to punish his cousin for stating what really happened (the NAACP, n.d). This shows that people have emotions, that may hinder them from telling the truth thus affecting their testimonies. Because this man had fear, he withdrew important information for decades, which would have made a difference to the case. He put the opinions of his family members above the facts. Another important witness of the case is Quiana Glover who stated she overheard Cole say he committed the murder, according to the NAACP, (the NAACP, n.d). According to the NAACP, other testimonies, including her testimony, was not used in court (the NAACP, n.d). Nine of the witnesses in the case, claimed that it was Davis who committed the crime in 1989, and 20 years later, they all took back their testimonies (the NAACP, n.d) . One witness/inmate stated that he lied about Davis stating that he committed the crime so that the inmate would get a less time sentenced in jail. (Baude, 2010, p.19). This shows that he truly cared about himself, and lied on someone to benefit himself. Larry Young, who was the homeless man in the case, stated that he was almost certain that Coles attacked him (the NAACP, n.d).
Other had doubts as to whether Davis committed the crime, stated that the same person who attacked Young, was the same person who killed the officer, some were intimidated by the police, and stated the police threatened them to confess that it was Davis who killed the officer, and was in fear that they would get in trouble if they did not cooperate with them, according to the NAACP (the NAACP, n.d). According to the NAACP, another witness lied in trial and claimed the person who committed the crime has a light complexion, and because Davis has a darker complexion, she knew Cole was the killer (the NAACP, n.d). One witness could not identify the man’s face, and just stated that it was Davis, and another man was unsure if Davis committed the crime (the NAACP, n.d).A witness, Steven Sanders, says that “He told the police that he “wouldn’t know the shooter again if I saw him,” according to (the NAACP, n.d). When they finally took back their witness testimonies, the court did not consider it and he was put to death. This shows that people’s testimonies are faulty, because people are faulty. People are inconsistent, which shows that should not be trusted as eyewitness testimonies. Whether witnesses are being threatened, are fearful, or just ignorant this shows that people are not always good eyewitnesses, and in this case it costed someone their life.
From 1989 to the time he was executed in 2011, he claimed to be innocent, (Baude, 2010 p.18). Jason Ewart, who was the leading attorney in this case, states “This isn't a black-and-white issue, nor is it a death-penalty issue (Stephen, 2011,p. 37). It's about witnesses who are saying that something is wrong.” (Stephen, 2011,p. 37). This statement makes evident that this really had nothing to do with the case, but the extent to which how severely faulty these eyewitnesses were.
The eyewitnesses were gathered a few days after Davis was convicted, and were called to detail what happened at the crime scene. One of the key witnesses that were used was Coles, who according to the NAACP, stated that he started an argument with the homeless man, and claimed that he had a gun, the same type that was used to kill the officer (the NAACP, n.d). Coles stated that he lost the gun. Also, by the time this happened and Davis was placed in a spread of photos, everyone seen his face (the NAACP, n.d). It was as if false memory was being implanted, because they were exposed to pictures of news media, it gave them all the more reason to choose Davis as being the criminal. This case is faulty as the killer in the case somehow convinced the court that he was an innocent witness, which made him put the blame on someone else. The number of witnesses which is a majority of them, took back their testimonies, and knew that Davis was innocent. In sum, eyewitnesses can be reliable but because of certain circumstances, they are often times unreliable. Eyewitness testimony was important in the case because that was the biggest piece of evidence at the time.
Children are important aspects to focus on when focusing on eyewitness testimony. According to Hobbs et al. (2013), children are often times used as eyewitnesses in crimes including domestic violence, homicide, school shootings, etc (p.561). Unlike adults, children also work with professionals such as social workers and lawyers (Hobbs et al. (2013). They are also questioned by the police (Hobbs et al., 2013, p.561). Often times they are used as eyewitnesses in sexual abuse cases because they are the ones who are the victims of it (Hobbs et al., 2013, p. 561).
to the court, and often times they are relied on (Smalarz & Wells, 2009, p.194). In instances, many instances eyewitnesses are needed in crimes such as assault, robbery, and drive-by shooting etc., (Smalarz & Wells, 2009, p.194). The authors hope that the judges and lawyers are more informed on how to identify reliable eyewitness testimonies and those that are not. The authors point that 75% of wrongful convictions were all because of faulty eyewitness testimony, and this was discovered through DNA testing (Smalarz & Wells, 2009 p.194). This shows us that eyewitness testimony is really important because often times they are there when a crime occurs. There insight, if accurate, which is not always the case, would be a big help if it was accurate. Sometimes because there isn’t any physical evidence, they are relied on, and since DNA testing has become more popular this displays how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be.
There are many factors that play a role in the effectiveness of eyewitnesses. In Box 10.6, (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009, p.241) mentit on 24 factors affecting eyewitness testimony including, which include, drunkenness, time, weapon focus, lineups, words, etc. If a person is drunk, for example, that affects their ability to describe people and incidents that occurred (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009, p.241). Sometimes a witness may perceive an event to happen in more or less time than it actually occurred, in cases where weapons are involved a person is more focused on the weapon than who was actually using the weapon, and the way questions are worded to the eyewitness may affect their responses , according to (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009, p.241). Also, depending on the way in which police officers instruct eyewitnesses during lineups, will affect who the eyewitness will choose as the criminal (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009, p.241). This evidence shows that there is conflict with eyewitness testimonies, as anything from a person, place, or thing can affect their judgements, which will determine the outcome of how reliable they are. Memory plays a large role in eyewitness testimony, as they are to recall events that occurred.
Elizabeth Loftus knows the value of memory, as she serves as an expert witness on memory. In Evidence-based justice: Corrupted memory, Moheb speaks about Elizabeth Loftus as an expert witness, and details factors that effects a person’s memory (Moheb, 2013, p.268). Loftus states that memory is easily influenced (Moheb, 2013, p.269). According to Loftus, it is more difficult to identify someone who is a different race than the one they are (Moheb, 2013, p.269). She played as an expert witness in a case where a man was trying to rape a woman (Moheb, 2013, p.269). The rapist fled away, and the victim described the man to the police. She identified a man whose car had broken down on the street, as the criminal (Moheb, 2013, p.269). He fit some of the descriptions of the man that the victim was describing. Because Loftus was able to serve as an expert witness, and explained that the woman was in a stressful situation, an innocent person was able to walk freely (Moheb, 2013, p.269). As an expert witness she points out that or memories are not “recordings of actual events.” Loftus is trying to have a policy passed, that jurors are to be informed of the faultiness of eyewitness testimonies (Moheb, 2013,
p.268).
Loftus was curious to see if one can install lies in one heads, and see if that person can believe that it really happened (Moheb, 2013, p.270). In Loftus’ mall study, Loftus gathered dozens of people in a mall, and with the help of their family members, told them that four incidents occurred to them, and one of them- that they were lost in a mall as a child- was a lie (Moheb, 2013, 270) . 25% of those people believed the lie (Moheb, 2013, p.270). This shows that if something or someone is easily influenced, that it is not consistent, nor will it always remain the same. She states that when someone is stressed and has fear, that will also affect their memories. Because a person is not used to that person, and seeing them everyday, they are more likely to make mistakes when trying to identify a person. Loftus’ mall study shows that words have power, and if someone is told something they may believe it. This is all the more proof to display that eyewitness testimony is problematic.
The Troy Davis case is an example that displays how problematic eyewitness testimonies from adults can be. According to (the NAACP, n.d), The Troy Davis case occurred on August 19th, 1989. During the time of the incident there were many people standing outside of a fast food restaurant; those people included a man named Sylvester Cole, Troy Davis, and a homeless man (the NAACP, n.d). According to (the NAACP, n.d) , Sylvester Cole attacked the homeless man on his head with a gun, after demanding alcohol from him (the NAACP, n.d). When a security guard came to assess the situation, Cole shot and killed the white security guard, and later blamed it on Troy Davis, who was eventually put to death in 2011(the NAACP, n.d). In 2010, one witness, Benjamin Gordon, confessed that he saw his cousin, Sylvester Cole commit the crime (the NAACP, n.d) . He feared that his family would criticize him if he testified against his own family member, so he kept quiet for 21 years. (the NAACP, n.d). He also feared that Cole would try to punish his cousin for stating what really happened (the NAACP, n.d). This shows that people have emotions, that may hinder them from telling the truth thus affecting their testimonies. Because this man had fear, he withdrew important information for decades, which would have made a difference to the case. He put the opinions of his family members above the facts. Another important witness of the case is Quiana Glover who stated she overheard Cole say he committed the murder, according to the NAACP, (the NAACP, n.d). According to the NAACP, other testimonies, including her testimony, was not used in court (the NAACP, n.d). Nine of the witnesses in the case, claimed that it was Davis who committed the crime in 1989, and 20 years later, they all took back their testimonies (the NAACP, n.d) . One witness/inmate stated that he lied about Davis stating that he committed the crime so that the inmate would get a less time sentenced in jail. (Baude, 2010, p.19). This shows that he truly cared about himself, and lied on someone to benefit himself. Larry Young, who was the homeless man in the case, stated that he was almost certain that Coles attacked him (the NAACP, n.d).
Other had doubts as to whether Davis committed the crime, stated that the same person who attacked Young, was the same person who killed the officer, some were intimidated by the police, and stated the police threatened them to confess that it was Davis who killed the officer, and was in fear that they would get in trouble if they did not cooperate with them, according to the NAACP (the NAACP, n.d). According to the NAACP, another witness lied in trial and claimed the person who committed the crime has a light complexion, and because Davis has a darker complexion, she knew Cole was the killer (the NAACP, n.d). One witness could not identify the man’s face, and just stated that it was Davis, and another man was unsure if Davis committed the crime (the NAACP, n.d).A witness, Steven Sanders, says that “He told the police that he “wouldn’t know the shooter again if I saw him,” according to (the NAACP, n.d). When they finally took back their witness testimonies, the court did not consider it and he was put to death. This shows that people’s testimonies are faulty, because people are faulty. People are inconsistent, which shows that should not be trusted as eyewitness testimonies. Whether witnesses are being threatened, are fearful, or just ignorant this shows that people are not always good eyewitnesses, and in this case it costed someone their life.
From 1989 to the time he was executed in 2011, he claimed to be innocent, (Baude, 2010 p.18). Jason Ewart, who was the leading attorney in this case, states “This isn't a black-and-white issue, nor is it a death-penalty issue (Stephen, 2011,p. 37). It's about witnesses who are saying that something is wrong.” (Stephen, 2011,p. 37). This statement makes evident that this really had nothing to do with the case, but the extent to which how severely faulty these eyewitnesses were.
The eyewitnesses were gathered a few days after Davis was convicted, and were called to detail what happened at the crime scene. One of the key witnesses that were used was Coles, who according to the NAACP, stated that he started an argument with the homeless man, and claimed that he had a gun, the same type that was used to kill the officer (the NAACP, n.d). Coles stated that he lost the gun. Also, by the time this happened and Davis was placed in a spread of photos, everyone seen his face (the NAACP, n.d). It was as if false memory was being implanted, because they were exposed to pictures of news media, it gave them all the more reason to choose Davis as being the criminal. This case is faulty as the killer in the case somehow convinced the court that he was an innocent witness, which made him put the blame on someone else. The number of witnesses which is a majority of them, took back their testimonies, and knew that Davis was innocent. In sum, eyewitnesses can be reliable but because of certain circumstances, they are often times unreliable. Eyewitness testimony was important in the case because that was the biggest piece of evidence at the time.
Children are important aspects to focus on when focusing on eyewitness testimony. According to Hobbs et al. (2013), children are often times used as eyewitnesses in crimes including domestic violence, homicide, school shootings, etc (p.561). Unlike adults, children also work with professionals such as social workers and lawyers (Hobbs et al. (2013). They are also questioned by the police (Hobbs et al., 2013, p.561). Often times they are used as eyewitnesses in sexual abuse cases because they are the ones who are the victims of it (Hobbs et al., 2013, p. 561).