Qualitative Experts only. PHD. Serious proofreading necessary.

Interview Transcripts

Transcript for Interview

Date: 1-14-19

Time: 15:35-16:00

Length of Interview: 25 minutes.

Phone Interview

Thank you for volunteering to do this interview. I am very interested in your career as a legal professional and I want to know the experiences that you have had as a result. As you know, you are not obligated to this interview and you can stop this interview at any time. Let me know if you have any questions before we begin.

Interviewer: What enjoyable moments have you had in your legal professional career?

Interviewee: I have had many enjoyable moments. I love being a part of the legal team and working with clients from all walks of life. It is interesting to see people from different cultures and the way that their perspectives

Interviewer: Based on the number of years you have been a legal professional, do you feel this has helped you understand the misinterpretation of eyewitness testimony?

Interviewee: Yes. I believe that throughout my career, patterns start to emerge. You start to see things in a different perspective. It doesn’t matter the social status of the eyewitness and it doesn’t matter how dishonest the person may appear.

Interviewer: Describe the types of situations you have encountered with the misinterpretation of eye witness testimony?

Interviewee: Well, I have encountered many murder trials where the actual killers were framing people looked like the killer. I have also had many people that actually had a good depiction of what happened, yet their memory recall was inconsistent with scientific evidence.

Interviewer: How has the lack of experience in an area hindered you from understanding the misinterpretation of testimony?

Interviewee: Since my lack of experience in the drug arena, it is hard for me to understand the circumstantial evidence. I do not understand how people can perform illegal drug acts and are able to get away with it.

Interviewer: Tell me about you were wrong regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?

Well, one time I had a murder case. I was so sure that one of the family members did it. The eye witness testimony was inconsistent and there was a lot of scientific evidence that pointed to one of the family members. Turns, out it was an intruder that came from out of town was the person that actually committed the murder and it was discovered during cross-examination.

Interviewer:  Tell me about how you were right regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?

There was this theft case. During the testimony, the eye witness got the description wrong of the parking lot where the theft occurred. However, I knew it was just the eye witness being nervous on the stand. So, I decided to take a different approach and I started asking questions that made it easier to pinpoint how the event really occurred; therefore, prompting her memory. It was really a matter of strong intuition combined with the evidence and the testimony of others.

Interviewer: Describe your legal experience when it comes to problems associated with eyewitness testimony regarding the inability to recall specific events of the crime?

Interviewee: Well, I have had a lot of experiences with people unable to recall information. I have found that the majority of people tend to forget specific details, yet they are able to remember the central event. I also have found that people that have been through certain crimes, whether it be that they were the victim or someone that witnessed the crime, have a tendency to repress memories.

Interviewer: How would you describe the confidence level of eyewitness testimony that had proven weaknesses in their testimony regarding memory recall?

Interviewee: Well, you get a wide range of confidence levels in this line of work. You can have eye witnesses that are confident, yet their testimony is completely inaccurate. You can also have someone that doesn’t appear confident and the testimony is completely accurate. So, the lesson here is you cannot always go by confidence level.

Interviewer: How would you describe the confidence level of the eye witnesses when a suspect is found to be wrongfully acquitted or wrongfully convicted?

Interviewee: Well, it depends on the level of their confidence. Some people face extreme guilt when it comes to the role that their testimony played during the trial and then you have people who feel very satisfied with the outcome because they knew they were right. Generally speaking, you have a wide range of emotions and confidence levels that is demonstrated during legal proceedings.

Interviewer: Describe how the eye witnesses demonstrated inconsistencies during cross-examination when it comes to how the eye witnesses recalls the events of the crime?

Interviewee: During cross examination, you can usually pinpoint inconsistencies. When attorneys start to question what the eye witness has said, you tend to find out that the testimony has holes in it that it is not consistent with the evidence presented.

Interviewer: In your experiences as a legal professional, how would you describe intentional and unintentional representations of the recall of events when it comes to eye witness testimony?

Interviewee: Well, some people lie on the stand; this is true most definitely. However, there are people that don’t recall the events correctly of the crime; of course, this is usually unintentional. However, the eye witness doesn’t not always realize that the eye witness testimony is inaccurate. So, it is true that it is all about perspective in that regard. However, this can be discovered during cross-examination and generally the eye witness is pretty appalled by this particular revolution.

Interviewer: In your experience, how would you describe the strengths and weaknesses regarding the accuracy of recalling the events of a crime?

Interviewee: Well, there are many strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the accuracy of eye witness testimony. As I said before, people generally recall the central event instead of the minute details; this often can be looked upon as a weakness or a strength, depending on the context. People often times incorporate biases into the eye witness testimony. People can have past issues that often because part of their testimony; this happens in more of a subconscious manner. Also, you have people that do not have an issue with reason and logic and don’t incorporate any particular biasedness into their testimony, yielding more accurate results.

Interviewer: Describe your experiences regarding how eye witnesses did not describe the criminal accurately in a lineup?

Interviewee: Well, there have been several incidences where the eye witness has confused criminals with each other. In my experience, most of the time people often accuse people that are similar in appearances; however, this is not always the case. There are people who mistake people because they didn’t have a good look at their face yet found distinguishing markers that they thought properly identified the criminal. However, it turns out they were wrong; this is especially true when it comes to identifiers such as tattoos or jewelry.

Interviewer: What do you think are contributing factors that interferes with the eyewitnesses's ability to accurately identify a suspect in a line up?

Interviewee: I would say being too confident or being not confident enough would be contributing factors. I would also have to say that confusion that is brought on by stress of the incident or stress from just being an eye witness and knowing that they have to testify against someone. Often times eye witnesses have this impending fear that the person that they testify against is going to come back and try to seek retaliation on them.

Interviewer: In your experiences, how would you describe experiences when the eyewitnesses's testimony is not consistent to the person they identified in the line up?

Interviewee: In my experience, this does not happen very often. Usually, this comes up later in the trial that the eye witness testimony is not consistent with the identification of the suspect in a line up. Also, it is important to understand that there are many expert witnesses that presents information to the jury. Generally speaking, the jury has a tendency to believe expert witnesses.

Interviewer: When conducting eyewitness interviews, how would you describe the setup of interview questions?

Interviewee: I would say that these questions vary depending on who is presenting the questions. Usually, it is important to present the questions in an organized manner and is generally based upon the subject matter.

 Interviewer: In your experience, what are the routine questions that are generally conducted during the interview?

Interviewee: Well, that depends on the type of crime that has taken place. However, the intent of the questions is to get a background of the eye witness in order they are stable enough to stand trial. Also, other questions may include if they know enough about the crime in order to present information to the courtroom. In my experience, some people claim that they were the eye witness and it turns out they weren’t close enough to present any substantial evidence.

Interviewer: In your experience, how would you describe the effectiveness of the interview questions that are implemented from the eyewitnesses?

Interviewee: In my opinion, they are pretty effective. However, not many things are one-hundred percent effective. If the questions are conducted efficiently and the eye witness answers them honestly, it increases the effectiveness of the questions. We are then able to pinpoint if the eye witness would be effective in identifying the suspect or if they eye witness had enough information to present to the court.

Interviewer: In your experience, how would you describe the patterns that emerge from the interview questions from the eye witness in which you suspect deception is present?

Interviewee: The patterns that emerge usually present themselves as inconsistencies in their statements. You can also tell when there are contradictions in their testimony, especially when contradictions exist when the information is coupled with scientific evidence. Deception often happens accidently, or someone is trying to cover up for another person. So, there are many different avenues of deception; it is important to consider many factors before you actually can say that a person is being deceptive.

Interviewer: Is there anything else you would like to add when it comes to your experiences with problems associated with eyewitness testimony?

Interviewee: I would say that when it comes to eye witness testimony, it is important to consider everything and never assume anything. Even if something appears to be true or appears to be false, you never can be too careful. Also, it is important to understand that each situation is unique in various ways and just because a pattern emerges does not necessarily make the eye witness testimony as accurate as it seems. When it comes to research, there should be more information out there for new and upcoming legal personnel.

End of Interview. Time: 16:00.

Interview # 2

Date: January 14, 2019

Time: 19:30-19:50

Time Lapsed: 20 minutes

Transcript for Phone Interview

Interviewer: What enjoyable moments have you had in your legal professional career?

Interviewee: The enjoyable moments I have is when justice is served. Sadly, the criminal justice system is not perfect and it still has many flaws that need to be addressed.

Interviewer: Based on the number of years you have been a legal professional, do you feel this has helped you understand the misinterpretation of eyewitness testimony?

Interviewee: Yes, I have. I feel like I have gained experience and I have witnessed many things as years go by. I have often times wondered how testimony can get misconstrued, even when the eye witness has the best intentions. However, the brain is a very powerful thing. Sanjay Gupta did a very interesting segment on CNN regarding memory. It is a very interesting thing to watch. I have discovered things about my own memory watching that segment. Even if you are more self-aware, people can still find themselves not recalling the events as they occurred.

Interviewer: Describe the types of situations you have encountered with the misinterpretation of eye witness testimony?

Interviewee: Where do I begin? Usually, you have misinterpreted testimony when the person on the witness stand displays a confident testimony. You also have to consider that someone people are so confident that there is an arrogance in a way. Also, there are times during cases that people actually talk themselves out of the truth and into a lie. In my experience, you often have to match up the information you can prove with the eye witness testimony and then you have to see where you stand.

Interviewer: How has the lack of experience in an area hindered you from understanding the misinterpretation of testimony?

Interviewee: Well, I am not experienced in murder cases and often times that is a challenge. People don’t realize that murders usually don’t come right out and confess to a murder. So, reliance on the eye witness is pretty intense in that regard. You generally have a forensic expert pointing in a specific direction. I have a difficult time with the details from the eye witness and combining the information given by the forensic expert.

Interviewer: Tell me about you were wrong regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?

I have several incidents in terms of being wrong with the accuracy eyewitness testimony. I had a rape case and it involved two people. However, at the time of the eyewitness testimony there was only confirmation of one alleged rapist. The eye witness kept insisting that there was another person involved. I was basing my facts around past experiences that generally when people are raped it is either a solo act or there was a gang rape incident that happened. However, the eye witness only could recall the events of one person; the surveillance footage confirmed that two people were responsible.

Interviewer:  Tell me about how you were right regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?

I was working a murder case and even though I am not good at murder cases, I had a very good instinct about this particular case. There was a person that was poisoned and the person that testified as an eye witness said that there was no way that the person on trial could have, they were out of town that particular day. However, I knew the surveillance tapes must have been tampered when I took in account all information that was presented. Later, it was discovered that it was actually the eye witness who had tampered with the surveillance tape.

Interviewer: Describe your legal experience when it comes to problems associated with eyewitness testimony regarding the inability to recall specific events of the crime?

Interviewee: In my career, I have had many experiences when it comes to the inability to recall information. There have been eye witnesses that have been confused and disoriented, hindering their ability to comprehend the crime that occurred. Also, there have been times where they couldn’t recall the events on a timeline. They also have a difficult time describing the event in any extreme detail and when they get to where they believe they recall information, they often have discrepancies in their description.

Interviewer: How would you describe the confidence level of eyewitness testimony that had proven weaknesses in their testimony regarding memory recall?

Interviewee: Well, weaknesses in the testimony have a wide range of confidence levels. It is very hard to determine accuracy based on a confidence level. There are many factors that can affect confidence levels; this includes stress, depression, and other physical and mental ailments. Sometimes eye witness tend to put together puzzles pieces that never really fit to begin with, so naturally there will be errors.

Interviewer: How would you describe the confidence level of the eye witnesses when a suspect is found to be wrongfully acquitted or wrongfully convicted?

Interviewee: I have discovered their confidence level seems very strong right before the verdict is read. It seems that the exhume a high amount of confidence in instances such as wrongful convictions and wrongly acquittals. However, this is not always the case.

Interviewer: Describe how the eye witnesses demonstrated inconsistencies during cross-examination when it comes to how the eye witnesses recalls the events of the crime?

Interviewee: There are many things that takes place during cross-examination. What is found during cross examination usually consists of the unraveling of flaws and a new look at information that may have elements of contradictions.

Interviewer: In your experiences as a legal professional, how would you describe intentional and unintentional representations of the recall of events when it comes to eye witness testimony?

Interviewee: There is different presentations of intentional and unintentional representations in terms of eye witness testimony. When someone is being deceitful, it usually is detected through body language and word usage, just to name a couple. When someone is unintentional, it usually has a different presentation, such as a consistent thought process and the having some sort of stability to the conversation.

Interviewer: In your experience, how would you describe the strengths and weaknesses regarding the accuracy of recalling the events of a crime?

Interviewee: Well, that is an award-winning question. The strengths usually contain consistency and the weakness usually contains “plots” or “holes” in the testimony, so to speak. It has been my experience that jury does not capture all of the possible weaknesses and strengths of the testimony; that is where further clarification is needed, typically during cross-examination.

Interviewer: Describe your experiences regarding how eye witnesses did not describe the criminal accurately in a lineup?

Interviewee: In my experience, this usually consists of accidental mistaken identity. It is very difficult to tell what kind of stressors that people have in their lives that may play a vital role when it comes to identification of a suspect. However, you do have cases where the person chosen in a lineup is completely different from the actual criminal. It is important for people to be aware that each

Interviewer: What do you think are contributing factors that interferes with the eyewitnesses’s ability to accurately identify a suspect in a line up?

Interviewee: As I stated, it could be a number of different factors that contribute to this particular issue. Stress, depression, PTSD, and just because they did not get a good enough look at the person that actually committed the crime.

Interviewer: In your experiences, how would you describe experiences when the eyewitnesses's testimony is not consistent to the person they identified in the line up?

Interviewee: That is a complex situation. It is very important to examine all the evidence, whether it be circumstantial or scientific. If the suspect is not accurately identified in a lineup, then there is an exceptionally longer trial. Inaccuracy of any type in a courtroom can lead to many dead ends and loop holes for attorneys to jump through.

Interviewer: When conducting eyewitness interviews, how would you describe the setup of interview questions?

Interviewee: The interview questions and just general trial questions that are generally standard straight off the cuff. However, the questions are generally put in place in order to understand the eye witnesses a little better. It is good to have a background of the person in order to have a good representation of where the eye witness is best suited during the trial.

 Interviewer: In your experience, what are the routine questions that are generally conducted during the interview?

Interviewee: Well, generally anything that points to their background. We ask them their background, their relationship the suspect, and their whereabouts regarding the crime.

Interviewer: In your experience, how would you describe the effectiveness of the interview questions that are implemented from the eyewitnesses?

Interviewee: They are pretty effective, actually. We have a better understanding of how the eye witness can give us the best information possible. Evidently, it depends on the topic at hand as well and it depends on the detail that is used.

Interviewer: In your experience, how would you describe the patterns that emerge from the interview questions from the eye witness in which you suspect deception is present?

Interviewee: That are many patterns that happen when deception is present. You definitely can tell that is loose information that is not pieced together appropriately. You can also have to take in consideration other factors, such as the inability to keep up with their story.

Interviewer: Is there anything else you would like to add when it comes to your experiences with problems associated with eyewitness testimony?

Interviewee: I would like to add that each case is different. So, any information is subject to change, depending on the subject matter. Yet, it all boils down to honesty and the ability to see through information and the ability to recognize what is inconsistent and what is not. Legal professionals definitely see patterns over a period of time and have a tendency to be street smart.

End of Interview.