Language
Country/Area
No result found
These innocent people were wrongly convicted! What happened to the eyewitness testimony?
Eyewitness testimony plays a key role in criminal law and becomes important evidence in determining innocence and guilt. However, according to research by the Innocence Project, eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, with more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing being related to eyewitness misidentification.
Eyewitness misidentification can have a fatal impact on wrongful convictions, and courts have been discussing the limitations of eyewitness testimony long before DNA testing became commonplace.
The late Justice Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court once pointed out that since the 1967 "United States v. Wade" case, the court has always recognized the doubtful nature of eyewitness identification evidence and described it as "the notorious injustice." reliable". In the UK, the Criminal Law Review Committee reported in 1971 that cases of misidentification most often lead to wrongful convictions. Even with these studies, juries appear to place a high degree of trust in eyewitness testimony.
Innocent victim
Many cases of wrongful convictions due to eyewitness misidentification have attracted widespread attention. In 1984, North Carolina student Jennifer Thompson was threatened with a knife and assaulted by a man who invaded her apartment. It's all nightmare-inducing. Thompson recalled: "I memorized his face in detail and wanted to get him arrested no matter what!" However, it turned out that the suspect she identified, Ronald Jujube, was not the real murderer, and her original memory was wrong. .
Thompson said confidently at the subsequent trial: "I am convinced that he was chosen!"
This incident was eventually reversed due to the results of DNA testing. In fact, Thompson's real attacker emerged during the subsequent trial, but Thompson denied having ever met this person. The case sparked scientific research on eyewitness memory, spurring an emerging field of research in cognitive science.
Factors affecting eyewitness memory
The reasons for eyewitness identification errors can be roughly divided into "system variables" and "estimate variables". System variables are controllable factors relevant to police procedures. For example, when the police conduct demonstrations without a suspect, victims often choose the person who best matches the suspect's description based on "relative judgment," leading to misidentification.
In 1999, the Department of Justice issued a series of best practice guidelines designed to improve police procedures when conducting eyewitness identifications.
In addition, advance instructions, the necessity of blind lineup administration, and the correct choice of online structure and content all profoundly affect eyewitness identification accuracy. Studies have shown that when victims are told before an identification is made that the suspect may not be among them, this significantly reduces the chance of false identification.
The psychological pressure experienced by the victim
Pressure is also an estimation variable that cannot be ignored. Research has shown that eyewitnesses' ability to identify is significantly reduced when exposed to high-stress situations. For example, when witnesses witness violence or firearms, their memory of the suspect's appearance is often impacted. This is known as the "weapon focus effect."
In high-pressure situations, the memory accuracy of witnesses decreases significantly, and the risk of misidentification may even increase.
The importance of law and evidence
In U.S. criminal trials, eyewitness evidence is still considered a powerful source of evidence. In court, however, many experts have called for more careful scrutiny of the credibility of eyewitness testimony. According to the Innocence Project, 214 men wrongfully convicted of misidentification have been freed.
Amid warnings about eyewitness memory impairments, many legal experts have recommended an intensified review of eyewitness identification procedures.
The most important thing is that various procedural factors in the police's collection of evidence play a key role in why these cases occur. Therefore, improving evidence collection procedures and institutional design is an important step in rethinking eyewitness testimony.
So we can’t help but ask: How exactly should we redefine eyewitness testimony in the legal system when evidence continues to be overturned?
