MFS Thesis RevisionEyewitness Testimony: How Accurate is it?

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY: HOW ACCURATE IS IT?

A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

MAY 2019

By

Ketesa S. Walker

Masters Thesis Committee:

Paul C Stein, Class Instructor

Dr Isadore Hall III Ph.D., Supervisor

Heather Ulmer, Supervisor

Ismail Sebetan, Director MFS Program

MASTERS THESIS APPROVAL FORMS

We certify that we have read the project of Ketesa S. Walker entitled “Eyewitness Testimony: How Accurate is it?” and that, in our opinion; it is satisfactory in scope and quality as a thesis for the degree of Master of Forensic Sciences at National University.

Approved by:

Paul C. Stein Date:

Dr. Isadore Hall III Ph.D. Date:

Heather Ulmer Date:

Ismail Sebetan Date:

Abstract

Eyewitness testimony and identification are a vital part of the hearing in the court and the most effective element for declaring any individual guilt or innocence during the proceedings of the court. The compromise on this aspect can challenge the reliance on the law. Therefore, it is very imperative to be sure regarding the reliability of this element. However, after some work done by the prestigious organizations like The Innocence Project, the reliability and dependency of this element have become a significant question mark for the law. This study will analyse the factors and various experiments from different studies to prove that either the dependency on this element is in the favour of the law or there is great uncertainty. The study will determine the precautions for the laws to be taken into consideration while convicting or freeing an accused person in the light of law.

Keywords: Eyewitness testimony, identification, accuracy

Preface

The focus of thesis remains on eyewitness testimony and reliability. The purpose of this study is to find out whether eyewitness testimony and identification could be relied upon or not. Various tests and researches will be studied in this study to find out the accurate factors of eyewitness testimony and reliability. The factors which could possibly affect the accuracy factor of the same will be brought into the limelight and their implications and strategies for their prevention will be discovered. This study comes with extreme importance as eyewitness testimony and identification are being used in the most critical matter of the society which is law. The future of the society depends upon the validity and the trust factor on the law. So, this study will identify that either it is good to continue with the same practice or there are further improvements required in the whole process.

A critical role is being played by the eye witness testimony and identification for proving the commitment of the crime. It has been considered as an influential proof against the crimes by various juries. However, there are certain reservations over the accuracy and reliability of the eyewitnesses’ testimony due to the results received by many researchers and field experts (Bennell, Jones, & Melnyk, 2009). The main reason behind the same was its dependence over a number of factors. The behaviour of the eye witness study has been a major topic for the social scientists from last 100 years and they include all the proceedings and hearings of the courtroom into the account for making any final decision regarding its accuracy and reliability (Bradfield, Wells & Olson, 2002). There had been a number of cases in the past that led to unjust results due to the false eyewitnesses’ testimony. For example, Jennifer Thompson wrongfully identified Ronald Cotton as the accused of breaking into her house and committing rape. A total period of 10 years from his life was spent in the jail until the truth was revealed by DNA (Diamond, 2008). DNA proved that Cotton was innocent as there were no traces from his body found at the crime scene. It means that the victim misidentification caused serious damage to the life of Cotton. Barry Sheck and Peter Neufeld created the innocence project at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 1992 (Epps & Todorow, 2017). The researchers made an effective usage of the DNA testing for freeing up more than 144 men that were wrongfully convicted due to misleading or insufficient facts by the law.

In another case study carried out over 40 convicted criminals revealed that 36 of the individuals were wrongfully convicted for the crimes that were not even committed by them. As the growth of the false conviction due to the eyewitness testimony continues to grow, it poses a serious concern over its reliability and accuracy (Garrett, 2011). There is minor doubt relating the significance of the eye witness testimony in many court cases; however, the reliability of the eye witness must be ensured for expecting valuable outcomes from the same. In addition, the competency of the judges for evaluating the reliability and accuracy of eye witness are quite important for carrying out the right decision (Graham, 2003). Judges hold the most dignified and responsible position in the courtrooms, and it is imperative for them to ensure that false eye witnessing or testimony in the courtroom should not lead to any wrong conviction damaging the life of an innocent, where freeing the criminal.

There is a major concern on the reliability and accuracy over the eyewitness testimony and identification in the court proceedings. There is a great role of inherited sense of humanity in the identification of the criminal. The memory of the eyewitness also plays a considerable role in ensuring that either the eyewitness is making use of the memory for reminding the scenario or using own created perception for describing the scenario. Vollen (2005) carried out a study indicating that the juries carried out right decision by convicting the criminal using eyewitness testimony and identification in more than 99.5% of cases. However, the problem still exists as there are 0.5% chances of wrong conviction due to eye witnessing and identification. It means that there were about 11,000 individuals that had been wrongfully convicted by the law as per the statistics of the USA only (Koriat, Goldsmith, Schneider & Nakash-Dura, 2001). Such a number is quite alarming for the courts and raises concerns over the protection of innocent individuals that could be convicted in a wrongful manner. It has become more significant for the courts to carry out a number of actions in order to decrease this number margin so that only criminals are convicted for their crimes instead of any innocent (Laudan, 2006). The court needs to analyse and identify the accuracy and reliability of the eyewitnesses taken to the court for the identification of the criminals or the description of the scenario. For the same reason, the study aims to collect enough data for meeting the study objectives including;

• To explore the many factors that may or may not contribute to the way an eyewitness recalls information regarding a crime and whether it can be used in court.

• To discuss the possible independent and dependent variables and factors that can determine whether an eyewitnesses’ testimony or identification can be considered accurate and/or reliable.

• To find out how the competency of an eyewitness can be determined and used to support the reliability of the testimony and/or identification.

• To discuss how the presence of DNA plays a significant role in the matter of wrongful convictions

• To collect information on past research experiments for providing data to support whether my hypotheses are correct.

There is extreme importance of the study as all the elements utilized in the study come with a vital significance in the hearings of the court. These elements are the deciding factors relating to the conviction of innocent individuals and criminals. The study will provide us with a certain direction regarding the further utilization of these elements for further court proceedings (Luria, 2007). The limitations of using these elements in the court proceedings will also be included that is valuable for courts in order to consider a number of factors before passing any conviction based on the results of these elements. The selection and utilization of these elements has been a major issue in recent times. The study majorly depends upon the selection of the elements; therefore, it is the most critical part of the study (Magnussen, Melinder, Stridbeck, & Raja, 2010). For the same reason, the selection of the elements in the study had been done based on the element selection carried out from various past academic studies focusing on the same area.

1. 1. Terms Definition

• Stress: It is the trauma from which the eyewitness is going through.
• Weapon Focus: The presence of the weapon at the crime scene diverts the attention of the eyewitness towards the weapon as compared to the actual scenario.
• Show-Ups: It is the process of criminal identification from the total line of suspects.
• Exposure Time: It is the time duration to which the eyewitness was exposed to the crime scene.
• Cross-Racial: It is the process of selecting the criminal from the list of the suspects coming from different social backgrounds.
• Hypnotic Retrieval: It is the period that is used by the eyewitness for reminding all the happenings and occurrences during the crime scene.

The study comes with a number of limitations as it majorly relies on the results achieved by various academic studies carried out in the past. It was not possible to carry out independent surveys for meeting the objectives of the study due to certain limitations of the timing and cost. However, the study will attempt the utilization of studies coming from recognized journals with complete information of their publication for reference purposes. In addition, the study will maintain its focus throughout the factors influencing the reliability and accuracy of the eyewitness during the testimony. The study will not focus on the factors or preventive measures that could be taken by the jury for the avoidance of the same.

Theory of signal detection is the underlying theoretical framework of the study. It is highly applied in psychophysics research since its development between 1940 -1950. The memory of recognition also takes a great deal from the same theory. The theory is also being utilized in a considerable manner in the diagnosis of medicine, violence analysis, crime investigation, and the law.

A study owns a great deal to the hypothesis of the study as it assists the researcher in finding and evaluating the answers achieved for meeting the research objectives stated earlier. The research hypothesis provides certain guidance to the study for carrying out a literature review and plays a major role in the selection of research methodology. In addition, they carry certain importance for the data collection in the study. After collecting all the data, the study will carry out analysis of the data based on the achieved results for proving the hypothesis either as right or wrong. It certainly supports the researcher in meeting the study objectives appropriately and efficiently. The below mentioned are the hypotheses for the current study;

Hypothesis 1: Witness confidence has a greater impact on the accuracy and reliability of the eyewitness testimony and suspect identification than any other independent variable.

Hypothesis 2: The number of overturned wrongful convictions increases with the presence of DNA evidence.

Hypothesis 3: The reliability of eyewitness testimony and identification of a suspect is negatively affected by certain factors such as stress, the focus of weapon, memory compromise, and cross-gender and cross-race identifications.

Hypothesis 4: A higher rate of accuracy when it comes to eyewitness testimony can significantly decrease the number of wrongful convictions.

Chapter 2 of the study will carry a literature review relating to the testimony and identification of the eyewitness. This chapter will use a great deal from the past studies carried out in the same domain. Chapter 3 will discuss the selected research methodology for meeting the objectives of the study and proving the hypotheses as whether they are right or wrong. This chapter will also provide a rationale for the selection of all tools. Chapter 4 will express the results received by the study with the utilization of the research methodology. Chapter 5 will carry out the conclusion of the study along with the implications of the study in the light of chapter 4.

Federal Rules of Evidence has set several rules as a general requirement for the utilization of eye witness testimony in any case. The rules state that the proceedings must be initiated with an oath, where it is mandatory for the eyewitness to claim that all the savings will be carried out in a truthful manner and the eyewitness is responsible and accountable for any kind of unjust conviction that may occur in case of any false claim or statement by him or her (Bennell, Jones & Melnyk, 2009). The rules also clarify that the witness must possess at least a basic level of knowledge at a personal level relevant to the case. It is also mandatory that the eyewitness is enjoying a normal state with the capability of collecting and recalling all the facts occurring in the actual scenario for giving them a proper shape that will be supportive for the court in analysing the difference between truth and lie (May, 2006). Federal Rules of Evidence have also involved the mental condition of the eyewitness as a significant factor for making the process of recognition easier. There are a number of factors with a tendency to affect the reliability of the eyewitness in a great way (McGough, 2012).

Stress plays a critical role in the eyewitness testimony as per a perception. The stress and emotional arousals possess the capability of varying eyewitness performance in a marginal way. However, the performance tends to move towards a negative direction after reaching a particular point. It is not possible to set a limit for the same as it depends majorly upon the complexity of the scenario (Memon, Mastroberardino & Fraser, 2008). The limited arousal of the emotions is very effective for the eyewitness in order to recall all the occurring; however, exceed of emotions from that limit will certainly bring adverse results. The law of Yerkes-Dodson has been initiated from the term of weapon focusing when an individual sees the criminal with a weapon, his or her attention diverts from the actual scenario to the weapon and the individual makes a certain effort for leaving the place in a minimum possible time (Newcombe & Bransgrove, 2007). Cue Utilization theory also states that the focus of the individual from the scenario is diverted after witnessing weapon at the crime scene. The individual would not be able to collect much evidence in that scenario as compared to the normal situation. It is quite clear from the developed findings coming from both theories that the testimony of the eyewitness is affected greatly after witnessing weapon at the crime scene. It becomes even more difficult for the eyewitness to identify the right individual who committed the crime. Loftus & Messo (1987) carried out a study in the same domain indicating that only 11% of eyewitnesses were able to detect right accused after being exposed to the weapon at the crime scene, where more than 39% of individuals were effective in the identification and recall of the suspects of the crime scene after not being exposed to the weapon. Clutter (1995) achieved results regarding a robbery crime in which 46% of individuals were able to carry out correct identification of the criminals due to not being exposed to the weapon at the robbery scene. These claims are quite efficient in realizing that the witnessing of weapons at the crime scene affects the reliability and accuracy of the eyewitness significantly.

The race is another significant factor affecting the reliability and accuracy of the eyewitness in a great manner. Clutter (1995) received results indicating that 57% of individuals were able to carry out correct identification of the criminal coming from a different race, where the number was substantially enhanced to 63% when the eyewitnesses had to carry out identification of the criminal coming from the same class as of theirs. In addition, the difference in gender is also significant as it also affects the identification capability of the eyewitness. Clutter (1995) received results in the same domain indicating that only 72% of individuals were able to carry out correct identification in cross-gender, where the number increased up to 76% in the identification of the criminal coming from the same gender. Shaw (1994) stated that 10% of error can occur during the identification of the eyewitness in the cross-gender as compared to the same gender. The results achieved by the past studies are quite capable for explaining the value of error possessed by the eyewitness during the involvement of cross gender and cross race suspects.

As per the basic principle of psychology, the expectations of the individual matter a lot in the viewing of things. It is quite evident from the fact that there is dying a lot of individuals going for the hunt of a deer (Nurse, 2018). Although, there is no similarity existing between a deer and hunter; however, when the hunter is unable to hunt down the deer for a long time, the level of his frustration increases certainly that he hunts down any moving object in front of him without even realizing that either the moving object is deer or not. These sorts of expectations carry a certain potential for misguiding the perception of the eye witness significantly. Loftus (1996) revealed that the perceptions of the eyewitness were more likely going to divert due to the expectations raised for short times.

Loftus (1996) further described that there was a wide difference between the narrations of a crime scene as compared to its actual witnessing. It is an interesting factor as the eyewitness himself or herself is not sure about the observation or judgement made by him or her about the crime scene. It means that it is not an effective idea to rely on the words of the eyewitness that is not confident in himself or herself. The witness is able to develop trust in him or herself using the statements coming from other individuals or eyewitnesses (Van Koppen & Saks, 2003). In case, there is a marginal difference between the statements of the eyewitness and the statements coming from the eyewitness then such individuals make use of excuses for escaping the situation like they were told to narrate in a particular manner, or they did not remember the scene clearly. There is a viable opportunity available to the investigators for avoiding such kind of scenario in the courtrooms by taking the statement of the eyewitness earlier in isolation before exposing him or her to any third party (Vollen & Eggers, 2005). The rationale behind the same is that the level of influence over the eyewitness coming from any third party will be minimized up to the maximum extent.

The rise of stress effect on the eyewitness is quite a normal phenomenon after being exposed to a crime scene. It is not an easy or convenient task for the eyewitness to make a certain control over his or her emotions or mental state after being exposed to a crime scene (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). It is essential for the courts to take the statement of the eyewitness after passing of some days for making sure that the eyewitness has returned to his normal condition. Otherwise, the wrong or misleading statement provided by the eyewitness can lead to the conviction of an innocent individual. Christianson and Loftus (1991) reveal in their study that anxiety level of the eyewitness will vary depending upon various factors coming from the situation including closeness to the criminal, relation with the criminal, duration of the event, and nature of the crime (Wells and Olson, 2003). There are two emotional states that could take up the individual after witnessing a crime scene. However, both emotional states carry a certain potential of adversity influencing the normal body functions of the human making his or her statements quite unreliable. The stress also affects the level of individual’s memory and it becomes quite difficult for the individual to remember and recall all the happenings from the crime scene. Deffenbacher et al. (1994) provided some contrary results revealing that the emotional stimuli of the individual had raised significantly right after witnessing a crime thus decreasing the impact of stress or anxiety in a certain way. Deffenbacher et al. (1994) carried out the study by manipulating the level of individuals stress after recording the results revealing that the same results were received afterwards that were comparable to the earlier results.

DNA and forensic experiment are some of the highly significant areas in the court proceedings where all the results are established based on scientific intervention. There is no involvement of the influence of any third party that is likely going to affect the results of the experiments by any mean. This kind of tests possesses the certain potential of bringing the truth and reality in the eyes of everyone along with a clear evaluation of the eyewitness testimony. Walsh et al. (2017) carrying out an analysis of the 71 murder and sexual assault cases dealt in 56 different courts across the USA revealed that the introduction of the forensic experiments and DNA had led to the identification of more than 11% of wrong convictions carried out in the case. However, Wells and Olson (2003) states that it is not a viable solution to rely totally on the DNA and forensic testing. The main rationale behind the same is that humans possess a 99.9% similarity with each other in terms of DNA, while there is only a 0.1% difference making us individual from each other. It is interesting to mention that there is only 1% DNA difference between a human and a monkey making us realize the significance of the 1%. Therefore, digital evidence can be a supportive tool but is not a viable idea to rely totally on the same as it may lead to any wrongful conviction of an innocent.

It is beneficial for the investing and police agencies to make use of effective interview techniques for extracting the right and required data from the witness with less interference. Two most critical factors for these techniques comprise of communication and memory. It is essential to enable the witness to recall all the critical information from the memory along with the translation of the same into the words and communicating it to the investigators. Fisher and Geiselman (1992) suggested that social interaction with the eyewitnesses could benefit the investigators more to extract and collect valuable information regarding the crime as compared to carrying out a rigid interview. There are a number of guidelines provided to the investigators in the same including that the investigator must make arrangement for relaxing the witness (Yacona, 2005). The investigator must make an effort to develop a rapport with the witness as he or she is a victim himself or herself. The investigator must encourage the witness to recollect all the evidence for truthful communication in order to avoid similar happening to any other individual. The investigator must develop a friendly and empathic relationship with the witness. The investigator must try to use the witness of the same-sex in case of a sexual assault (Wixted, 2007). The investigator must make an effort to understand the condition of the witness and must claim his or her level of emotions. The investigator must ask an open-ended question to the witness for providing answers with better explanation. The investigator must relax the individual after every question instead of doing the same at the beginning only. The investigator must not judge the witness whether he misunderstands the witness in case of inconsistencies in the story (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). The investigator must encourage the witness to utilize relative judgement as compared to the absolute one.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

The study will mainly utilize the qualitative research method for the study. The researcher would not arrange any kind of survey for collecting the data from the primary respondents; instead, the study will make use of the research findings coming from the primary researches carried out by various recognized scholars. The study will develop various sets of dependent and independent variables for collecting the data from the primary researches efficiently and appropriately. In addition, the study will make a solid attempt to bring all the data in a coherent manner in order to achieve the objectives of the study. The rationale behind the usage of the same method is the limitation of the resources and time for carrying out this study. In addition, this method will provide certain opportunities to the researcher for exploring the matter in great details. The researcher would not only be able to include all the critical factors relevant to the study but will also gain the benefit of evaluating all those factors in a careful manner for accepting or rejecting the hypotheses with confidence.

There are two types of variables selected in the study for the collection of the data and its interpretation for achieving the results relevant to the study.

1. 1. 1. Independent Variables

These are the variables that are not depending upon any kind of response. It means that the implication of any other variable does not possess the capability of affecting its integrity. The response of these variables is quite simultaneous, and they can lead the study to any particular direction. In maximum cases, it is not possible to measure or evaluate its response using interviews or surveys. However, the study will gain data from the results of primary studies due to its qualitative nature. The independent variables used in the study include;

• Disguise: This variable indicates the physical condition of the criminal during the committing of a crime as it is not necessary that the criminal will possess normal get up during committing a crime.

• Weapon presence: This variable will put a certain focus on the availability of the weapon at the crime scene along with its nature, a method of existence, and exposure timing.

• Violence: This variable defines the nature of the crime witnessed by the individual. It indicates whether the crime was of a harsh nature like murder or soft nature like robbery.

• Retention Interval: This variable indicates the span of time passed after the witnessing of the crime by the individual. This variable is a bit critical in evaluating the difference of results received after testimony of the criminals after a short or long time period.

• Line up Instructions: This variable measures the type of instructions provided to the witness before testimony and impact of the same on his statement.

• Line up Size: This variable measures the lines of suspects standing in front of the witness for the selection of the criminal that is actually convicted for the crime.

• The resemblance of Line up Members: It is quite possible that all the individuals standing in the line of suspects carry much resemblance to each other. This variable identifies the resemblance of the line-up with the impact of the same for the identification of the real criminal.

• Voice Samples: If the witness gets an opportunity of listening to the voice of the criminal then the impact of the same for the identification of the criminal will be assessed by this variable.

• Witness Confidence: it is natural that the confidence of the witness varies as per the situations. This variable will take the level of confidence possessed by the individual during the process of selection from the suspects and whether that selection was appropriate or not.

These are the variables that lack the capability of expressing the results simultaneously. Independent variables possess the ability to decide the results along with influencing the same in either a positive or negative manner. The dependent variables as per the nature of the study include;

• True identification of the criminal: This variable will suggest the results in the form of percentage regarding the true identity of the criminal by the witness during the testimony with a certain impact of all the independent variables.

• False identification of the criminal: This variable will suggest the results in the form of percentage regarding the false identification of the criminal by the witness during the testimony with a certain impact of all the independent variables.

As the study is mainly utilizing qualitative research methodology; therefore, the results coming from the utilization of same variables in various recognized literature, case studies, journals and their publications will be utilized in the study. The study will evaluate all those results in a coherent manner for radically accepting or rejecting the hypotheses. The results of the hypotheses will carry certain significance for meeting the objectives of the study.

Chapter 4: Results

There is a good response collected regarding the identification of the criminal by the witness in the light of collected literature. The percentage of the true identification received by the eyewitness was about 90%. There was a difference of 10% indicating that the eyewitness testimony could lead to drastic results (Laudan, 2006). The impact of the independent factors on the truthfulness of the eyewitness was quite less. However, the confidence level of the eyewitness carried certain importance during the identification of the criminal from the line-up of suspects. Shaw and Skolrick (1994) state that the percentage of 51% of jury members passed the conviction of the 450 individuals with a 100% confidence level of the witnesses, where the confidence level of the witnesses was 80% and 37% of jury members passed on the decision of conviction. The correct identification estimation in such cases was 60 % to 67 % (Luria, 2007). The presence of the weapon along with its nature and exposure timing carried nothing significant in the eyes of the jury. Maximum of the jury members had passed on the decision against the criminal despite the presence or absence of the weapon at the crime scene. The percentage relating to the acceptance of identification accuracy and conviction is about 66 % and 46 % (Magnussen, Melinder, Stridbeck, & Raja, 2010). The acceptance of the eyewitness testimony in the cases including the exposure of the weapon is about 54 %, where the percentage of conviction in those cases is about 30%.

Cutler and Pernord (1995) carried out a study by presenting two groups of witnesses in front of a jury. There were about 20 members present in each of the group making a total of 40 members. There was a certain difference in the group, for example, the witnessing of one group was never claimed after the case proceedings, where a claim was made regarding the identification of the claims by another group (McGough, 2012). Amongst those groups, 84% of the times the jury members were in the support of using the testimony of the individuals that were true for the first time. Where the jury members were not in favour of making a decision using the statements of eyewitnesses that were not true for the first time in 74 % of the times (Memon, Mastroberardino & Fraser, 2008). It clearly suggests that testimony of the witnesses carries certain significance in the eyes of the jury including other factors as they are aware of the fact that any wrong statement provided by the witnesses can lead to a wrongful conviction of any individual.

There were a total of four hypotheses established during the initial phases of the study. It is quite essential to relate those four hypotheses with the results achieved from the qualitative analysis of the primary studies for meeting the objectives of the study.

Witness confidence has a greater impact on the accuracy and reliability of the eyewitness testimony and suspect identification than any other independent variable.

It comes with minor doubt that the confidence level of the eyewitness carries more significance in the courts eyes before passing on any decision regarding the suspect. Witness confidence is something that combines afterwards the summing up of values of all the independent variables (Risinger, 2000). If all the independent variables have gone in the favour of the witness including no exposure of the weapon or exposure for minimum time, less violent nature of the crime, good memory, and selection of the criminal from the same sex or race, the confidence level of the witness will improve systematically (Roberts, 2012). Similarly, if all the things as mentioned earlier have not gone in the favour of the witness including significant violent nature of the crime, bad memory of the witness, exposure of the weapon, and selection of the criminal from the line up of the suspects coming from different gender or race, it will be possible that the witness may not possess the right level of confidence and it will not be viable for the jury to depend entirely upon the statement of the witness. It means that the witness confidence and reliability on its statement is developed as per the situation of the crime (Scheer, 2002). Therefore, witness confidence plays a major role as compared to other independent factors as it is a total summation and indication of the overall reliability of the eyewitness.

The number of overturned wrongful convictions increases with the presence of DNA evidence.

DNA and other similar forensic experimentation are providing much support to the jury members for finding the true information underlying behind the case. DNA enjoys a certain capability of unveiling hidden facts in front of a jury that would not only bring the true realities of the crime, but also contribute significantly towards the assessment of witness trustworthiness (Stahly, 2018). Despite the presence of certain limitations in the DNA testing due to the DNA similarity by 99% in all the individuals, it is a reliable test that can be used for the support by the jury members. However, it is not a trustworthy method for relying totally on its results for making the decision as there is a 1% chance of wrongful conviction that may affect any innocent individual in a harmful manner (Vallas, 2011). As far as the identification of wrongful conviction due to the testing results of DNA is concerned, the hypothesis is accepted in various manners as the chances of wrong conviction is higher due to the involvement of a number of factors including stress, weapon exposure, nature of the crime, etc. where, the chances of wrong identification by DNA testing is less as it is a more scientific approach with minimal interference of the external factors (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). In addition, there had been various cases in the past including Ronald Cotton where the DNA provided certain evidence relating to the wrongful conviction of the innocent person.

The reliability of eyewitness testimony and identification of a suspect is negatively affected by certain factors such as stress, the focus of weapon, memory compromise, and cross-gender and cross-race identifications.

The results state that stress is one of the great factors affecting the emotional state of the witness greatly. After witnessing the crime, the witness goes through a disturbed emotional state that creates problems in his or her body functions to operate normally. It is not possible for the witness to overcome stress factor after witnessing the crime that is of harsh nature like murder. However, the impact of this factor is quite low during the cases of crime with less violence like robbery (Bennell, Jones, & Melnyk, 2009). The weapons carry the certain potential of diverting the attention of the witnesses from the actual scenario to other insignificant things. Especially, when a more violent weapon with long exposure time is seen by the witness, his or her statements may be altered due to the fear felt by him or her at the crime scene (Wixted, 2007). Memory is something that varies from person to person; however, witnessing such an uncommon thing does not flash from the mind of the witness in an easier manner. If there are several clues provided to the witness regarding the crime scene, it will become convenient and effective for the eye witness to recall all the occurring and happenings properly (Yacona, 2005). There are a number of factors with a potential to influence the reliability of the eyewitness and testimony; however, it is essential to mention that the level of their influence is not much significant to lead the decision to wrong conviction of any individual. In addition, there is a certain opportunity available to the investigating team for minimizing the adverse influence of these factors by the utilization of cognitive interview techniques for gathering the results from the eyewitness.

A higher rate of accuracy when it comes to eye witness testimony can significantly decrease the number of wrongful convictions.

In the light of the above literature review and data collection, it is clearer that the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony plays a significant role in decreasing the number of wrongful convictions. There is a clear indication relating to the improvement of the right conviction decisions based on the higher accuracy of the eyewitness testimony (Yacona, 2005). It is essential to note that even high accuracy of eyewitness testimony is not capable enough for leading the results towards 100% accuracy as there is still a 1% chance that can lead to wrong conviction of the innocent. It is not possible to either reject or accept the hypothesis completely as even a 1% chance of wrong decision raises a concern over justice for more than 11,000 suspects only in the USA (Memon, Mastroberardino & Fraser, 2008). The high accuracy of the eyewitness testimony and identification can lead to real conviction up to a maximum extent, but not entirely. Therefore, it is not an effective technique for the jury members to rely mainly upon the recommendation and identification of the eyewitness testimony before passing any judgement.

There is low doubt that the eyewitness identification and narration of the actual crime scene provide certain support to the jury for reaching the actual outcomes of the case. It is essential to note that there are a number of factors with a certain potential of restricting the capability of the eye witness to provide actual identification of the criminal in order to make sure that no wrong conviction is carried out against an innocent person (Epps & Todorow, 2017). It is a significant aspect of the cases, where the eyewitness identification and testimony are the most critical factors in reaching the final results of the case. If the jury member does not ensure the reliability and dependability of the eyewitness, this may lead to any wrongful conviction that will shake the trust of the common individuals on the justice system (Garrett, 2011). One of the best practices that can be adopted by the jury members for passing out of such situations in an effective manner comprises the calling of a psychologist during the court proceedings. A psychologist due to his qualification and professional experience holds certain capability of analysing, reviewing, and verifying the reliability and dependability of the eye witness appropriately (Garrett, 2011). The psychologist can be a great asset providing guidance to the jury members to proceed with the identification of the eyewitness or make efforts for collecting additional information in order to reach better results (Lillquist, 2002). However, there are still a lot of conflicts existing between the law experts and psychologists relating to the inclusion of the eyewitnesses during the court proceedings.

It is essential for the investigator to carry out a systematic procedure for presenting the eyewitness to the court. The cognitive interview technique can prove to be more efficient for the investigator to enhance the reliability and dependability of the eyewitness substantially. The stress, weapon exposure, nature of the crime, memory, etc. carries prospective up to some extent for varying the emotional state of the individual (Luria, 2007). Therefore, when the investigators carry out certain cognitive techniques and methods provided by the same, they get the maximum capability of extracting valuable information from the eyewitness with a minimum level of interference (May, 2006). The investigator must develop a positive atmosphere to the eyewitness for encouraging him to provide valuable results that can be supportive in reaching the hidden realities behind the case. It is a better option available for the investigator to click photos or videotape throughout the proceedings of interaction with the eyewitness for presenting the same in the court to make sure that the eyewitness does not change his statements abruptly due to any internal or external influence (McGough, 2012).

It is beneficial for the jury to consider all the factors related to the case instead of just relying on the identification of the eyewitness. DNA and other forensic tests can prove to be more supportive for the jury in unveiling various critical aspects of the case. These tests are carried out scientifically with little possible interference from the external factors (Bennell, Jones, & Melnyk, 2009). It is necessary to utilize these test results for the evaluation of the case and criminal effectively. However, there is still some chance of possible errors in this kind of tests; therefore, total reliability on these test results is not an appropriate solution. The jury needs to consider all the significant factors of the study including the testimony of the eyewitnesses before passing any final decision.

The research study reveals that there is a question mark relating to the reliability and dependability of the eyewitness testimony for the identification of the criminal and conviction. It comes with minor doubt that there are various factors including confidence level of eyewitness, exposure of the weapon at the crime scene, violence severity of the crime scene, memory capability of the individual, etc. that carries the potential of interfering the emotional state of the individual that may lead to false identification resulting an innocent to be convicted (Bradfield, Wells & Olson, 2002). Despite the fact that the influence of these factors is quite low, it is essential to note that still; these factors play a role that may take an innocent citizen to false or wrong conviction. In order to avoid such scenario or false conviction, it is mainly the responsibility of the jury to take certain actions for improving the reliability and dependability of the eyewitness identification by decreasing the impact of these factors (Newcombe & Bransgrove, 2007). Juries need to take the confidence level of the eyewitness into consideration before passing any decision that is suspect specific. The investigations carried out by the law implementing agencies can play a vital role for providing certain support to the jury for reaching better decisions. The investigators hold a great responsibility of law administration; they should make sure that no innocent is convicted unlawfully. The objective can only be achieved by the investigator if proper cognitive interview technique is utilized for the extraction of valuable information from the eyewitness in a manner that is trustworthy, appropriate, and accurate (Epps & Todorow, 2017). The investigator can improve the reliability of the identification by eyewitness by recording the proceedings thoroughly as evidence for the jury to realize any kind of influence over the eyewitness. It is quite possible that the eye witness may change his statement completely in the courtroom due to any external influence or pressure (Diamond, 2008).

The judge can play a significant role in improving the reliability of the eyewitness for carrying out any decision regarding the suspect. The judge can provide instruction to the jury members regarding the consideration of various factors with certain importance in the case (Bennell, Jones, & Melnyk, 2009). In addition, the judge can take support from the psychologist as per the need of the case. The main and only purpose of the judicial system is to ensure the law abidance with the revelation of the truth up to the maximum possible extent. In order to reach the same objective and provide justice to the community with integrity, it is essential for the courts to consider all the factors along with the eyewitnesses’ testimony for enhancing the accuracy of the decision and make sure that no innocent is convicted for unjust reasons (Bennell, Jones, & Melnyk, 2009).

As per the research study analysis, it is obvious that eyewitnesses are human themselves. As there is always a chance of error pertaining to the human; similarly, there is no 100% guarantee regarding the identification and testimony of the eyewitness. There are various situations when the scenarios seen by the eyewitness do not describe the truth but some of its parts only. In addition, there are a number of factors with a certain potential of affecting the reliability and dependability of the eyewitness. Therefore, it is evident that possible chances of error are always pertaining to the identification and testimony of the eyewitness (Bennell, Jones, & Melnyk, 2009). Despite its low percentage, the chances of wrongful conviction of an innocent person are always there and even a single wrong conviction case carries the potential of shaking and disturbing the complete integrity of the legal system. It is therefore, essential for the law enforcing agencies to develop some effective rules and regulations to minimize the chances of intervention up to the maximum extent. Utilization of cognitive interview techniques can prove to be a valuable tool for the investigators in increasing the reliability and dependability of the eyewitness. This type of investigation can be supportive for reaching the true identification of the suspect with minimal interference. However, this type of interviewing technique is missing from the procedures of regular police, where the law must consider its addition (Epps & Todorow, 2017). Moreover, the law enforcement agencies should consider the inclusion of psychologist during the identification and testimony of the eyewitness for gaining a better idea relating to the emotional state and confidence level of the eyewitness. The law must also make use of scientific information coming from DNA and other forensic testing to increase the reliability of the identification. The law must provide certain time to the eyewitness for reinstating to normal condition and recalling all the happenings of the situation in an effective manner (Graham, 2003). Finally, the main purpose of a legal system is to ensure the integrity of the law and make sure that no innocent is convicted in a false manner; therefore, the law system must consider the inclusion of all the procedures, rules, and methods as provided earlier for reaching the better outcomes and maintaining appropriate legal condition in the society and community.

References

American Judicature Society. (2011). A test of the simultaneous vs. sequential

Bennell, C., Jones, N. J., & Melnyk, T. (2009). Addressing problems with traditional

Bradfield, A.L., Wells, G.L. and Olson, E.A., (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of applied Psychology, 87(1), p.112.

Cutler, B.L. & Penrod, S.D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, Psychology, and the law. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Deffenbacher, J.L., Oetting, E.R. and Lynch, R.S., 1994. Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological reports, 74(1), pp.83-91.

Diamond, S.S., (2008). Psychological contributions to evaluating witness testimony. Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom, pp.353-365.

Epps, J.A. and Todorow, K., (2017). Refryed Forensics: Screening Expert Testimony in Criminal Cases Through Frye Plus Reliability. Seton Hall L. Rev., 48, p.1161.

Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Graham, M. H. (2003). Federal rules of evidence. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., Schneider, W. and Nakash-Dura, M., (2001). The credibility of children's testimony: Can children control the accuracy of their memory reports?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(4), pp.405-437.

Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, error, and criminal law: An essay in legal epistemology.

Lillquist, E. (2002). Recasting reasonable doubt: Detection theory and the virtues of

Lineup Methods: An initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification Field Studies. Des Moines, IA: Wells, G.L., Steblay, N.K., & Dysart, J.E.

List, J. A. (1986). Age and schematic differences in the reliability of eyewitness

Luria, A., (2007). Showup identifications: A comprehensive overview of the problems and a discussion of necessary changes. Neb. L. Rev., 86, p.515.

Loftus, E. (1996). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “Weapon Focus.”Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), 55–62.

Magnussen, S., Melinder, A., Stridbeck, U., & Raja, A. Q. (2010). Beliefs about factors Affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of judges, jurors and the general public. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 122-133. doi:10.1002/acp.1550

May, J.Y., (2006). Those Credible Eyewitnesses. Editor's Notes, p.24.

McGough, M. (2012). To err is human: Using science to reduce mistaken eyewitness Identifications in police lineups. NIJ Journal, 270, 30-34.

Memon, A., Mastroberardino, S., & Fraser, J. (2008). Münsterberg's legacy: What New York, NY: Cambridge.

Newcombe, P.A. and Bransgrove, J., (2007). Perceptions of witness credibility: Variations across age. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(4), pp.318-331.

Nurse, K.R.D., (2018). Forensic Experts' Best Practices in DNA Collection, Analysis and Testimony: A Delphi Study (Doctoral dissertation, The University of the Rockies).

Risinger, D.M., (2000). Navigating expert reliability: Are criminal standards of certainty being left on the dock. Alb. L. Rev., 64, p.99.

Roberts, A. (2012). Expert evidence on the reliability of eyewitness identification:

Schacter, D.L., Dawes, R., Jacoby, L.L., Kahneman, D., Lempert, R., Roediger, H.L.,&Rosenthal, R. (2007). Policy forum: Studying eyewitness investigations in the field. Law and Human Behavior, 32(1), 1-3. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9093-9

Scheer, J. B. (2002). The reliability of eyewitness reports: The effect of accurate and Inaccurate information on memory and bias. Colgate University Journal of the Sciences, 34(1), 119-53.

Shaw, J.I. & Skolnick, P. (1994). Sex differences, weapon focus, and eyewitness Reliability. The Journal of Social Psychology,134(4), 413-20.

Stahly, E.J., (2018). Exploring the Relationship Between Personality Characteristics and Eyewitness Memory: A Test of the Weapons-Focused Effect.

Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence (2003). Eyewitness evidence:A

Testimony. Developmental psychology 22(1) 50-57. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.1.50

Theory of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 114, 152-176.Wonsowicz, P. (2012). Evidence: A context and practice casebook. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Trainer’s manual for law enforcement.National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/eyewitness/188678.pdf

Vallas, G. (2011). A survey of federal and state standards for the admission of expert Testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses. American Journal of Criminal Law,39(1), 97-146.

Van Koppen, P.J. and Saks, M.J., (2003). Preventing bad psychological scientific evidence in The Netherlands and The United States. In Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice (pp. 283-307). Springer, Boston, MA.

Variability. University of California Davis Law Review, 36, 85-197

Vollen, L. & Eggers, D. (2005). Surviving justice: America’s wrongfully convicted and Exonerated.San Francisco, CA: McSweeney’s Books.

Wells, G. L. & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of

Wells, G. L. & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification

Wells, G.L. and Olson, E.A., (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), pp.277-295.

Wixted, J. T. (2007). Dual-process theory and signal-detection

Yacona, R., (2005). Manson v. Brathwaite: The Supreme Court's Misunderstanding of Eyewitness Identification. J. Marshall L. Rev., 39, p.539.