Eyewitness testimonies are considered, in courts and with juries, reliable however, some have brought into question their validity.
According to Cambridge University Press’ Dictionary, an eyewitness is, “a person who saw something happen, for example, a crime or an accident.”
In the field of psychology, eyewitness testimony is considered less reliable because when a criminal act is taking place, there is an increased amount of stress in the body due to trauma that makes memory processing less efficient and accurate than average and then, there is also the ways questions are phrased by police and attorneys after the fact that also influence memory.
In 1974, psychologists Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer tested memory and language with a video involving a car accident. When asked about the vehicles’ speed, using the words such as “smashed” or “collided” yielded a mean higher number-- 40.5 and 39.3 respectively-- than the word “contacted”, 31.8 mph.
A rape case in 1984 had sentenced an innocent man to two life terms until he was exonerated 11 years later by DNA evidence. Jennifer Thompson was sure that a man by the name of Ronald Cotton was the one to break into her apartment, put a knife to her throat and rape her however, it was actually Bobby Poole-- a man Cotton met in prison.
Thompson has spoken out on the issue, “Based on my testimony, Ronald Junior Cotton was sentenced to prison for life. [...] I will never forget the day I learned about the DNA results. [...] They told me: ‘Ronald Cotton didn't rape you. It was Bobby Poole.’”
She continued, “If anything good can come out of what Ronald Cotton suffered because of my limitations as a human being, let it be an awareness of the fact that eyewitnesses can and do make mistakes. I have now had occasion to study this subject a bit, and I have come to realize that eyewitness error has been recognized as the leading cause of wrongful convictions. One witness is not enough, especially when her story is contradicted by other good people.”
In Tom Wells and Richard A Leo’s book, “The Wrong Guys: Murder, False Confessions, and the Norfolk Four”, they discussed how soft memory can be that lead to four innocent men being charged with rape and murder.
Wells and Leo wrote, “Human memory is quite malleable, beliefs more so. Plenty of studies have demonstrated how memories and beliefs can be planted or changed through deception, pressure, and suggestion-- techniques that are all used in police interrogations in more powerful ways. Researchers have planted the following false memories or beliefs in people: that they had been the victim of a vicious animal attack; that they had been hospitalized overnight; that they had nearly drowned and had been saved by a lightguard; and they they had witnessed demonic possession as a child.”
“Researchers have even planted false narrative memories of the day after a person’s birth. In some of these studies, people remembered details (even sensory ones) and expressed emotions about the false events. In those cases where they didn’t have concrete recollection and thus lacked the subjective feeling of memory, their perceptions are best termed beliefs than memories.”
The Supreme Court has urged jurors and judges to always proceed with caution when listening to witnesses and calling a verdict.
Though, a poll by the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) showed that the public found physical evidence exceedingly more reliable than eyewitness testimonies.
Yet, it is still crucial that potential jurors know how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be and how much stock one should put in it. The Innocence Project stated that 70% of overturned verdicts were due to eyewitness testimony and were overturned due to DNA evidence. Accessing the validity of eyewitness testimony would help lower that statistic substantially.
