Skip to Content
Free Consultation 201-574-7919
Top

Science shows eyewitness identification is often flawed

|

For many decades, prosecutors have depended heavily on eyewitnesses to convince a judge or jury that a defendant committed a crime. However, in recent years, it has become evident that eyewitnesses are not as reliable as the criminal justice system was giving them credit for.

Eyewitness identification plays a significant role in the criminal justice system, often shaping the course of trials and investigations. However, recent studies and wrongful conviction cases have cast doubt on the reliability of this method.

Why Eyewitness Identification Can Be Unreliable

It is not that eyewitnesses purposefully identify the wrong suspects, but instead that our minds can be easily tricked into remembering something differently from how it actually occurred.

In fact, several studies have concluded that eyewitnesses only choose the correct suspect about half of the time, and it is widely now accepted that eyewitness identification can be problematic, especially when the process isn’t handled properly.

Evidence

Research indicates that several factors can impede the accuracy of eyewitness identification. First, suggestive identification procedures can inflate an eyewitness's confidence in their identification. This is problematic because jurors tend to equate high confidence with accuracy, even though research shows this correlation is weak at best.

Secondly, human memory is fallible and can be influenced by post-event information. Details of a crime scene can fade or be distorted over time, and exposure to subsequent information can alter an eyewitness's memory.

Thirdly, factors such as stress, the presence of weapons, and cross-racial identifications can also hinder an eyewitness's ability to correctly identify a suspect.

Legislation

In the landmark decision of Manson v. Braithwaite, 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court established a two-inquiry test concerning suggestive eyewitness identification procedures1. The first inquiry determines whether the identification procedure was suggestive, and the second inquiry assesses whether the suggestive procedure was problematic based on five criteria.

However, over 30 years later, the ruling has not been revisited, and its effectiveness is being questioned in light of emerging scientific evidence.

The Consequences of Unreliable Eyewitness Identification

Unreliable eyewitness identification has serious implications for the criminal justice system. DNA exonerations have revealed that mistaken identifications are the primary cause of wrongful convictions. This not only leads to innocent people being incarcerated but also allows the actual perpetrators to remain free.

Moreover, the current legal framework does not adequately address the issues surrounding eyewitness identification. The Manson v. Braithwaite test, for example, inadvertently encourages suggestive procedures by boosting an eyewitness's standing on three of the five criteria used to decide whether the suggestive procedures were a problem.

Proposals for Change

That is why many advocates, including lawmakers, judges, criminal defense lawyers and police chiefs, want to toughen up the laws regulating the way police and prosecutors handle eyewitness identification.

For example, advocates say that the following requirements should apply to police lineups:

  • Lineups should be administered by people who do not know who the suspect is
  • Lineups should include more than one person
  • Suspects in lineups should be randomized
  • Police should document how certain the witness is of the identification at the time it is made

The New Jersey Supreme Court has already handed down strict guidelines regarding eyewitness testimony, and several other states have revamped their laws as well to better-protect the accused.

However, most prosecutors throughout the country are against the reform, arguing that it will take away important evidence that they depend on. But those in support of eyewitness identification reform say that prosecutors are choosing to ignore scientific data.

Takeaway

While eyewitness identification can provide valuable evidence in criminal investigations, its potential for error cannot be ignored. The legal system needs to acknowledge the limitations of human memory and the impact of suggestive procedures. This could involve revisiting outdated legal standards, educating juries about the factors that can impede eyewitness accuracy, and implementing best practices for conducting identification procedures.

If you are facing criminal charges, contact our attorney as soon as possible.

Categories: 
Share To: