Eyewitness testimonies: are they still reliable?

Jonathan Song, jsong29@student.kis.or.kr

Eyewitness testimony is a procedure that utilizes first-hand witnesses to validate against criminals. For example, this involves inviting people who were present at the incident to testify. Eyewitness testimonies have been an important part of the criminal justice system for countless decades, possibly centuries, usually serving as powerful and strong evidence against a defendant. Ideally, eyewitness testimonies should be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence, but unfortunately are not. In reality, there are countless cases of false memory as well as eyewitness testimonies taking precedence over other forms of evidence, which result in a wrongful accusation in court, raising more and more questions about eyewitness testimonies. For example, in the year 1984, Ronald Cotton, who was singled out by the victim Jennifer Thompson, was imprisoned for 11 years before DNA samples proved his innocence. Thus, the unreliability and potential for error of eyewitness accounts should be examined with extreme caution. In this essay, I will discuss how eyewitness testimonies, when presented in court, are difficult to interpret objectively because of how they are conveyed in court, the past beliefs of jurors, and how children can misinterpret specific details of the event.

First, when jurors decide which eyewitness testimonies are more credible, jurors are heavily influenced by how the evidence is presented in court. Social psychologist Michael R. Lieppe highlights the overemphasis on confidence in courts, arguing that confidence and speech style have more influence in convincing the jurors of their case, rather than actual research. Additionally, this argument is backed by yet another psychologist, R. C. L. Lindsay, in his work “Expectations of eyewitness performance: Jurors' verdicts do not follow from their beliefs,” which shows how jurors usually miscalculate eyewitness accuracy, sometimes even relying on confidence and, more so, superficial cues rather than actual factors that truly affect the validity of the testimony. In other words, this suggests that jurors rely too heavily on how the evidence is presented rather than the evidence itself, resulting in what could be unfair situations for defendants. Eyewitness testimonies potentially could have been useful in the past, in an era without modern technology, but now, the idea of eyewitness testimony is outdated and unreliable, especially in cases with high stakes.

To add to the limitations of eyewitness testimony, in some cases, jurors' past beliefs may influence how they interpret or perceive the eyewitness testimony. In a 1976 case, Johnny Lee Gates, a black man, was charged with the rape of a white woman. “Prosecutors tracked the race of prospective jurors, made derogatory comments about Black people, and struck all prospective Black jurors.” Within two hours, the all-white jury collectively agreed that Johnny Lee be sentenced to the death penalty, when, in actuality, in 2018, DNA tests proved that he was not the raper, releasing the man after serving 43 years in jail for a crime he did not commit. While this case highlights the racial division and segregation of specific jurors, this can apply to almost any other case, whether jurors are anti-LBGTQ or anti-Christian. Summed up perfectly by Lauren O’Neil, “Jurors’ perception and understanding of the eyewitness testimony heavily depend on their past beliefs.” Ultimately, this would not only create unimaginably unfair cases for the defendant, but, if in the future anyone seems to find out that the eyewitness testimony was false, or the juror was biased, the individual who made the mistake could potentially go to jail like Johnny Lee Gates.

Finally, in cases involving children and eyewitness testimony, it is worth noting that children tend to omit details of the event, especially under pressure. In a study by Gabrielle F Principe at Ursinus College, results highlight the unreliability of children’s memory in cases as well as the common pattern of errors. Specifically, children tend to leave out details they have not learnt yet. For example, without the ability to differentiate between correct and incorrect information in their memory, children can easily confuse the two and give unreliable information. Additionally, the source indicates that children are more likely to make mistakes due to overconfidence in their mistaken memories. Children may have difficulty recalling specific details of an event, significantly lowering their reliability. For example, in a case involving the murder of a three-year-old in Mississippi, the only other witness was her six-year-old sister, Ashley Smith. When identifying the killer, she chose Levon Brooks, an ex-boyfriend of her mother. While the details of the event presented by Ashley were constantly unpredictable and changing, Brooks was sentenced to life in prison. By 2008, DNA evidence proved Brooks innocent, after serving 16 years in jail. This injustice within the court highlights the unpredictability and unjustness of a child with impaired memory as an eyewitness testimony, negatively affecting lives to the point where they can be wrongly convicted to life sentences.

In conclusion, while eyewitness testimony has been considered a highly accurate deciding factor within the court, its reliability is increasingly being questioned due to countless cases of unfair jurors, impaired memory in children, and bias. Eyewitness accounts should be approached with caution and should be fixed to have a fair case for all. 

Bibliography:

O’Neill Shermer, L., Rose, K. C., & Hoffman, A. (2011). Perceptions and Credibility: Understanding the Nuances of Eyewitness Testimony. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27(2), 183–203. Sage Journals . https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986211405886

O’Neill Shermer, L., Rose, K. C., & Hoffman, A. (2011). Perceptions and Credibility: Understanding the Nuances of Eyewitness Testimony. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27(2), 183–203. Sage Journals . https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986211405886

Leippe, M. R. (1994). The appraisal of eyewitness testimony. Adult Eyewitness Testimony, 385–418. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511759192.019

Lindsay, R. C. L. (1994). Expectations of eyewitness performance: Jurors’ verdicts do not follow from their beliefs. Adult Eyewitness Testimony, 362–384. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511759192.018

Contributor. (2015, August 20). Experts on Eyewitness Identification. Fairlie & Lippy, P.C. https://fairlielaw.com/philadelphia-court-allows-expert-testimony-on-eyewitness-reliability/