Abstract
Eyewitness error is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions. In fact, the American Psychological Association estimates that one in three eyewitnesses make an erroneous identification. In this review, we look briefly at some of the causes of eyewitness error. We examine what jurors, judges, attorneys, law officers, and experts from various countries know about eyewitness testimony and memory, and if they have the requisite knowledge and skills to accurately assess eyewitness testimony. We evaluate whether legal safeguards such as voir dire, motion-to-suppress an identification, cross-examination, jury instructions, and eyewitness expert testimony are effective in identifying eyewitness errors. Lastly, we discuss solutions to eyewitness error.
Highlights
Researchers have been studying eyewitness testimony for over a century because of the frailties of human memory and the important role that it plays in wrongful convictions
Of this review, we examine what the principal participants in the criminal justice system and experts know about eyewitness testimony and memory, how effective legal safeguards are in detecting eyewitness error, and solutions that legal systems can implement to minimize eyewitness error
Houston et al [14] determined that jury eligible participants produced significantly more correct answers when they completed a multiple choice questionnaire about eyewitness factors than when they had to produce their own responses to questions
Summary
Judges in the survey who were more knowledgeable about eyewitness testimony had many of the attitudes and beliefs that may be necessary to reduce eyewitness error They believed jurors have limited knowledge of eyewitness factors. They had a greater willingness to permit the use of legal safeguards for eyewitness error including expert testimony. Like the judges, attorneys’ knowledge of eyewitness testimony was not related to legal experience, but was related to attitudes and beliefs that may be necessary to reduce eyewitness error In another recent survey, Magnussen et al [38] evaluated what 100 Italian defense attorneys know about eyewitness testimony. Melinder and Magnussen [47] concluded from their surveys that expert witnesses are at risk of providing courts with faulty information about memory
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
