Eyewitness testimony, criminal justice, criminal procedure, identification, eyewitness statement, criminal proceedings, expert testimony, Manson test, Manson versus Brathwaite, identification procedure, State versus Henderson, criminal investigation, police lineup
Witness testimony has long been considered the most critical evidence in criminal cases, often gaining convictions without other proof. In the past, courts and juries trusted eyewitness reports. However, forensic science, particularly DNA technology, has changed criminal justice. DNA testing has shown eyewitness identifications' fallibility, necessitating a reevaluation. DNA evidence has exonerated many unfairly condemned by eyewitness testimony. Thus, eyewitness statements are now being questioned. According to forensic science, human vision and memory are biased, error-prone, and influenced by environmental factors. Stress, leading questions, and post-event information can significantly alter eyewitness memories. These revelations have led the criminal justice system to scrutinize eyewitness testimony and seek more evidence to support convictions. This paper analyzes eyewitness evidence's inherent problems, important U.S. court cases that have molded its admission, and new proposals for improving its accuracy.
[...] Brathwaite (1977) established eyewitness testimony trustworthiness. The Court employed the Manson test to assess the witness's chance to see the culprit and identification accuracy. This exam helps judges and juries determine eyewitness identifications for court admissibility. Closeness to the perpetrator, observation length, and identification conditions were stressed in the Manson test. The Court focused on the reliability of the identification procedure and conditions to prevent wrongful convictions based on eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness identifications were examined using the Manson test, but their weaknesses and biases were not addressed. [...]
[...] Conclusion Eyewitness testimony is unreliable and questionable due to the inaccuracy, susceptibility to bias, and proneness to errors in perception and recollection. Because of these features, such testimony is. To avoid the perils of false convictions, leading court cases have imposed, strictly for eyewitness identification, the totality test. Due to these judicial precedents, the importance of the reliability of eyewitness evidence and risk mitigation has changed. The recent accuracies, with modern identification, improved the confidence level of the witness and addressed the risks that involved only eyewitness statements. [...]
[...] Thus, eyewitness statements are now questioned. According to forensic science, human vision and memory are biased, error-prone, and influenced by environmental factors. Stress, leading questions, and post-event information can significantly alter eyewitness memories. These revelations have led the criminal justice system to scrutinize eyewitness testimony and seek more evidence to support convictions. This paper analyzes eyewitness evidence's inherent problems, important U.S. court cases that have molded its admission, and new proposals for improving its accuracy. The Fallibility of Eyewitness Evidence Eyewitness testimony, previously considered the best evidence in criminal prosecutions, is now flawed. [...]
[...] The criminal justice system thus inherits the advancement of these approaches. It enforces adjudication with fairness and dependability that will help reduce cases of miscarriage of justice and false convictions. This ongoing work protects defendants' and victims' rights and legal integrity. References King, G. (2020). Serving true justice-exposing and overhauling criminal justice procedures leading to wrongful convictions. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/80013/King,%20Graham.pdf?sequence=1 TEDx Talks. (2016). Why eyewitnesses fail Thomas Albright TEDxSanDiego [YouTube Video]. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l05NGp_z6TI QHat. (2016). Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable? [YouTube Video]. In YouTube. [...]
[...] This might cause memory errors and inconsistencies, jeopardizing eyewitness testimony. Misinformation, whether deliberate or not, can further taint eyewitness reports. Law enforcement and legal representatives' post-event comments, leading questions, and suggestive interrogation can alter witnesses' memories. Albright's presentation of the misinformation effect showed how false information can change one's memory. The criminal justice system can also influence witness testimony through procedural and environmental variables. Using lineup processes without safeguards against suggestive cues or administrator bias can lead to false convictions during witness identification. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
