Reliability and Unreliability of Eyewitness Testimony: Decision Based on Accurate Evidence

Each year about 75,000 testify in favor or against a criminal in court, the New Jersey Supreme Court believes that there is a lack of reliability in eyewitness testimonies. Eyewitness testimony tends to act as sufficient evidence for convicting the accused. Over the years the U.S. Supreme Court has been noticing the drawbacks of highly depending on eyewitness testimonies and how the destinies of the accused should not be determined by what witness saw or “think” they saw. In the United States alone, 75% of eyewitness identifications were overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence based on DNA analysis performed in the late 1980s. Reasons contributing to the the unreliability of eyewitness testimony include malleability of memory and misconduct of government officials.       

Witnessing violence has many behavioral and cognitive consequences, among them is reduction of memory strength. Psychologist and memory connoisseur, Dr. Daniel Schacter asserted that human beings tend to be biased towards current attitudes, knowledge, and emotions. An experiment by Dr. Linda J. Levine where she tests memory of initial emotions of participants in an experiment proved that the participants’ memories were contaminated by their current attitude towards the afflicted. She proved that by rating candidates’ emotional reactions after President Ross Perotwithdrew in the 1992 elections and after his surprising return to the election. The participants were not able to recall their negative feelings after they have been replaced by positive attitudes towards the President.Another experiment conducted in 2017 demonstrates that people who are exposed to violence are more likely to suffer from reduction in short-term memory and cognitive control. The sample was of Colombian civilians who were either exposed to urban violence most of their lives or were forced to flee their homes and were exposed to violence with militia groups almost ten years ago. The memory task strategy was to try and make the participants recall some of their violent experiences and some other neutral and cheerful experiences. The results were that the violent experiences were only 66% accurate which proves how exposure to violence can hinder the process of recalling a memory. Therefore, by depending on eyewitnesses to recall scenes of violence and considering their testimony accurate, the Court of Law is neglecting these studies and will therefore make assumptions and reach to a conclusion that is far from accurate.

Moreover, police misconduct is another very prominent factor contributing to the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies. One case in particular that received worldwide attention is the case of Troy Davis. It started the night of August 19, 1989 when Police officer, Mark McPhail, was shot in a Burger King’s parking lot attempting to prevent a theft. As a result of the allegations of a number of witnesses testifying against Davis, the jury sentenced him to death in 1991. Police misconduct occurred when they presented the eyewitnesses with the mugshots of the accused five to ten days after the incident and after posting wanted posters of Troy Davis all over the neighborhood psychologically guiding the witnesses to identify him in court. Not to mention, one of the eyewitnesses confessed to being threatened that if he does not choose to cooperate with the police, he will go to jail for ten to twelve years. Troy Davis was sentenced to death even though seven out of nine witnesses changed their positions and new witnesses incriminated another man. 

Witnesses recanted after realizing how they were led by the Police to testify against Davis. One of the witnesses admitted on the stand that he was only sixty percent sure it was Davis who did it because he was nervous. Another witness had not even seen the photo array claiming that he will not be able to identify the suspect unless he is wearing the same clothes. Later, he identified Davis saying that it is impossible not to identify someone who held a gun at an innocent person. This witness later realized he came to this conclusion as a result of seeing Davis’s photo in the newspaper the day before he testified. Yet another witness claimed to be assured that he had it wrong by the Police as he identifies another man as McPhail’s killer. Up until now, we can never know whether or not Troy Davis is guilty; however, we know that there is no concrete evidence incriminating him and that is why this case demonstrates a flawed death penalty system, post-conviction system, versatile eyewitness memory, and police misconduct.On the other hand, a common misconception is that eyewitness testimonies are one of the most convincing evidence in criminal trials.This is unfortunately the product of human nature’s tendency to only believe what they see. A recent study shows that expert testimony properly assesses the credibility of eyewitnesses in order to aid jurors to arrive to a verdict. However, unfortunately, expert testimonies have only been purposed to educate the jurors and not to eliminate the eyewitness’s testimony from evidence. 

The jurors do not consider applying the experts’ assessments to their verdicts. This is an effect of the jury’s blind trust in eyewitness testimonies and their lack of knowledge and expertise in the matter of eyewitness credibility. According to the Innocence Projectof 1992, 358 people who have been sentenced to death have been proved innocent through DNA evidence. Not to mention, 71% of these had already spent time in jail for something they are not guilty of. Eyewitness testimonies may be convincing, however, that does not necessarily mean they are accurate.That is why it is important for the judges and jury to understand that there are incredible eyewitness testimony and that it is of great importance to remove these testimonies from evidence in order to ensure that justice is being served.        

Whilst the reliability of eyewitness testimony is creating worldwide controversy, it is important to acknowledge that proof of memory vulnerability and government officials’ misconduct hinder any proof of eyewitness accuracy. The human memory is constantly contaminated with experiences and emotions that we cannot control. In order for the court of justice to carry out justice for the families of the victim and to find the true criminal, they need to base their judgement on more accurate and concrete evidence aside from eyewitness testimonies.