Eyewitness identification is often a key element in criminal cases, but the accuracy of eyewitness testimony has been called into question in recent years. Numerous studies have shown that eyewitnesses are prone to errors and false identifications, which can have serious consequences for defendants who are wrongfully convicted. In this blog post, we will examine the research on false identification by eyewitnesses and its implications for the criminal justice system.
One of the most famous cases involving false eyewitness identification is that of Ronald Cotton. Cotton was convicted of rape in 1985 based on the eyewitness testimony of the victim, Jennifer Thompson. However, DNA evidence later proved that Cotton was innocent and that another man, Bobby Poole, was the actual perpetrator. Thompson had identified Cotton as her attacker with confidence and certainty, but she was wrong.
Studies have shown that false identifications like this are not uncommon. In fact, research has demonstrated that eyewitnesses are often unreliable when it comes to identifying suspects. One study by the Innocence Project found that eyewitness misidentification was a factor in 69% of wrongful convictions that were later overturned by DNA evidence.
Research has consistently shown that eyewitnesses can make mistakes, leading to false identifications and wrongful convictions. This is particularly true when eyewitnesses are asked to identify suspects in high-pressure, stressful situations.
Peer-reviewed research on false identification has highlighted several factors that can contribute to mistakes. For example, studies have shown that cross-racial identifications are less reliable, and that memory is less accurate when identifying a suspect who is seen only briefly or in poor lighting. Other studies have focused on the impact of suggestion and feedback from law enforcement during identification procedures.
One of the most famous studies on eyewitness identification is the “Loftus and Palmer” study, which showed that leading questions could affect how people remembered an event. In the study, participants were shown a video of a car crash and then asked a series of questions, including one that asked how fast the cars were going when they “smashed” into each other, while another group was asked the same question with the word “hit”. The group that was asked about the cars “smashing” reported higher speeds than the group that was asked about the cars “hitting”.
Another significant study is the “Wells and Bradfield” study, which showed that eyewitness confidence in their identification is not a reliable indicator of accuracy. In the study, participants were shown a video of a crime and then asked to identify the suspect from a lineup. The participants who were the most confident in their identification were not necessarily the most accurate.
These and other studies have led to changes in the way proper eyewitness identification procedures are to be conducted, such as using “double-blind” administration (where the person conducting the lineup does not know who the suspect is) and providing jurors with information about the reliability of eyewitness identification.
One reason for the high rate of false identifications is the way that the brain processes information. When we see something, our brains do not record an objective, accurate representation of what happened. Instead, our memories are influenced by a variety of factors, such as our expectations, emotions, and post-event information. This means that eyewitnesses can be influenced by leading questions, suggestive lineups, and other factors that affect their memory.
To address these issues, researchers have developed a variety of techniques for improving eyewitness identification. These include double-blind lineup procedures, in which the administrator does not know who the suspect is, as well as sequential lineups, which present witnesses with one photo or person at a time instead of all at once. Other techniques include using non-suspect fillers who resemble the suspect, providing feedback to witnesses about the accuracy of their identification, and using video or audio recording to document the lineup process.
Despite these efforts, false identifications continue to occur in criminal cases. This has led some experts to question the reliability of eyewitness identification as evidence in court. In response, some states have implemented new procedures for eyewitness identification, such as requiring law enforcement to document the lineup process and conducting training for officers and prosecutors.
In conclusion, the research on false identification by eyewitnesses is clear: eyewitnesses are prone to errors and false identifications, which can have serious consequences for defendants who are wrongfully convicted. While there are techniques available for improving eyewitness identification, it is important for the criminal justice system to be aware of these issues and take steps to mitigate the risk of false identifications.
Our Clients are entitled to a Bill of Rights which states:
- Our clients have the right to expect, we will be proactive in communication. You will hear it from us first. We will return all phone calls, texts and emails promptly.
- Our clients have the right to expect plain speaking, straight shooting. No B. S.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to do it right the first time, every time.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to be on time and professionally prepared for all court appearances, and all meetings.
- Our clients have the right to expect that they will be fully informed at all times.
This is our promise to you. Call today to get us on your side: (717) 657-3900.
