Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

On July 17, 1982, a young woman was raped by a black man in Virginia, who approached her on a stolen bicycle, and beat her, threatened her with a gun, and raped and sodomized her. After reporting the crime, due to the perpetrator mentioning that he had a white girl at home and was black, a police officer singled out Marvin Anderson, who was an 18-year-old local black man with a white girlfriend. As Anderson had no criminal record, the officer obtained a colored employment ID from his employer as a photo which was later shown to the victim along with six other black and white mugshots of potential suspects. Marvin was falsely identified by the victim, and identified again in a live lineup, with the added detail of Anderson having a white girlfriend only confirming who she thought was the perpetrator. From the beginning of the case, the community suspected another man, John Otis Lincoln, who had stolen the bicycle involved in the rape from a man half an hour prior to the incident. Although Anderson requested for both the owner of the bicycle and Lincoln as witnesses, his counsel denied. Anderson was convicted by an all-white jury on all accounts and sentenced to 210 years imprisonment, despite being his first conflict with the law and having an alibi, as his mother, girlfriend and neighbors saw him washing his mother’s car at the time of the crime. Lincoln later confessed, but the same judge from the original trial refused to vacate the conviction. Only when his case was accepted by the Innocence Project in 1994, and they were able to win access to DNA testing in 2001, did DNA evidence exclude him as a suspect, was Anderson proven innocent. Then in 2002, Anderson received a full pardon by the Virginia Governor, Mark Warner, after spending 15 years in prison and 5 years on parole.

What Surprised Me?

What surprised me was the inadequate defense given to Anderson, and that his request for Lincoln and the bicycle owner to testify as witnesses was denied. However, the most surprising fact was that Anderson was falsely convicted despite a clear alibi supported by his mother, girlfriend and neighbors who stated that he was in the driveway washing his mother’s car at the time of the crime and the government misconduct by the jurors.

Ways that Memory Can Be Altered

The reconstructive nature of memory is a major reason that memory can be altered. By combining information stored in the long-term memory with other available information to form what seems to be a coherent and accurate memory, various alterations can occur. These can involve the addition of extra information, the simplification of information, the loss of specific or incongruent details and changes to a memory to suit a person’s knowledge and beliefs. Bridge (2012), a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, further illustrates reconstructive memory as follows: “Memories aren't static…by remembering something in the context of a new environment and time, or in a different mood, your memories might integrate the new information”. Furthermore, Nader (Miller 2010), a neuroscientist at McGill University, concludes that “it may be impossible for humans or any other animal to bring a memory to mind without altering it in some way”, with every recollection of a memory having the potential to change it. Both Bridge and Nader highlight the plasticity of memories, and demonstrate that memory is not always a completely accurate record of a crime or event.

The Influence of Prior Knowledge, Biases and Expectations, and Interval Between Crime and Retrieval on Eyewitness Testimony

Prior knowledge, biases and expectations can affect eyewitness testimony as they can result in an inaccurate recollection of events during memory reconstruction, as we usually fill any missing gaps in memory with logic which may not always be correct. As a result, a false memory can occur, which is a fabricated or distorted recollection of an event. False memories can then cause eyewitnesses to give inaccurate information or differing accounts of the same incident. Therefore, our tendency to reconstruct memories through prior knowledge, biases and expectations can lead memories to become unreliable from witnesses, making eyewitness testimony untrustworthy.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Depending on the time of the interval between the crime and the retrieval of the memory, more details of the incident will be lost. Based on the research of Hermann Ebbinghaus in his famous set of experiments on forgetting, it has been shown that around half of a memory is lost within the first hour after learning or experiencing it. As a result, eyewitness testimony can become much more unreliable the later the memory is retrieved by a witness, and specific details of the event are lost. This eyewitness testimony can become more untrustworthy depending on the age of the victim and if there is stress or trauma involved at the time of the event.

Pros and Cons of Police Officers Wearing Body Cameras

The pros of police officers wearing body cameras are that they increase the accountability of officers and prevent officers from being accused of misconduct, they provide video footage which can be used as evidence, and increase the safety of both police and the general public. Body cameras can both detect misconduct in police officers and improve the accountability of officers and public, resulting in better interactions between law enforcement and officers. Video footage can also provide evidence in many legal proceedings, as technological evidence is unbiased, and can help to confirm eyewitness testimony. Finally, the presence of body cameras can encourage good behavior in officers and citizens, resulting in a decrease in violence, use of force or attacks on officers, reinforcing the safety of law enforcement officials and the public.

In contrast, there are also cons regarding the use of body cameras, as they can be unreliable, create a privacy concern, and are expensive to use and maintain. Despite being able to record the actions of officers and the public, they are only useful if operated properly and if pointed at the direction of the suspect or action. As a result, if a camera is not turned on before facing a suspect, or if an officer is faced with a complex situation, the camera may not capture the incident. These videos can still be interpreted and face issues with quality and storage. During incidents requiring social work by law enforcement officials, body cameras can also pose a privacy concern, being obtrusive and making it more difficult for officers to interact with youths and people who are mentally ill, or assisting with the injured and mediating disputes. Lastly, body cameras are also extremely expensive as police departments require extra staff, equipment and training, as well as data storage facilities and maintenance, ultimately making them difficult and costly to use and manage.

Suggested Procedures for Law Enforcement to Use When Collecting Eyewitness Testimony

There are many suggested procedures for law enforcement officers when collecting eyewitness testimony, such as training officers in eyewitness identification, implementing procedures for double-blind lineups, and using standardized eyewitness instructions, as recommended in the study report, ‘Identifying the Culprit’, developed by the National Research Council (NRC) (2014).

Law enforcement officers should be educated on the various factors which can affect and alter memory, and should be trained on minimizing the effects of distortions to their memories of events and incidents which could occur at a crime. Officers should also be aware of asking information using open ended questions which are non-leading to reduce the possibility of revealing information to an eyewitness. Double-blind lineups are lineups in which both the witness and the administrator do not know the potential suspect. This can prevent potential biases from the witness due to prior knowledge, or unintended expressions or comments from the administrator that could reveal the suspect, allowing the witnesses to be uninfluenced. Finally, standardized eyewitness instructions should be implemented to further reduce biases from the witness, as a standard set of instructions used during the identification process would not be revealing of who the possible perpetrator is, and if they are in the lineup or not.