Research Paper: Eyewitness Identification and Testimony Assignment

Eyewitness Identification and Testimony Assignment Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Professor Date Abstract Investigating the issues of eyewitness testimony and identification is crucial to understanding their application and complexity in the criminal justice system. The goal of this research paper is to explore the issues in eyewitness testimony, such as memory, time, stress, and expert testimony. The paper will also examine the legal system involving eyewitness testimony, including the Manson criteria, exploring the significant cases that shaped the implementation of eyewitness testimony and identification. The provided suggestions to advance eyewitnesses comprise administering constant education to law enforcement officers and enhancement of measures in practices, such as double-blind lineups, and restraining contamination feedback from the administrators to the witnesses, among others.   Eyewitness Identification and Testimony Assignment A great discussion has occurred for years concerning the consistency and precision of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases. People have mostly believed that eyewitnesses are undependable because of individuals’ supple memory and the pressure that transpires throughout the incident. However, study displays that with the correct conditions and the formation of good policies and measures, eyewitness testimony and identification can be correct and consistent in criminal cases. The process of eyewitness testimony involves what happens when an individual witnesses a crime and later stands in front of the court and retells all that happened during the incident. They might be interviewed by law enforcement officers and different lawyers, describe the offender or suspect to different people, and be recalled to identify the offender, among others. This paper delves into the issues of eyewitness identification and testimony and offers possible resolutions that might help resolve such challenges. The discussion will include issues with the Manson criteria, identity detection, eyewitness memory contamination, and self-reporting. Moreover, the paper will explore possible solutions, such as policy and changes in measures that can help decrease wrong identification among witnesses, resulting in less wrongful convictions and ways in which eyewitnesses can be improved to identify the suspects. Central Issues in Eyewitness Identification and Testimony The reliability of eyewitness testimony in criminal proceedings is affected by three main issues. The first problem includes the challenges related to memory accuracy and reconstruction, underscoring the vulnerability of eyewitness memory to influences, including stress, recommendation, and post-event information. Research displays that recollection is malleable in the event that individuals come to positively recall traumatic measures that never even arose (Wixted, 2018). The misidentification made in high poise in a court of law is reported to have played a major role in above “70% of the 358 wrongful convictions that have been overturned based on the DNA evidence” (Wixted, 2018). Such an issue has become a challenge because identifications are more crucial and regular forms of evidence offered at trial, and they are significant in leading to an offender's conviction. Its reliability has been discussed in psychological and legal circles, and most psychologists have labeled eyewitnesses as "inherently suspect" (Gottlieb et al., 2020) The second issue is time, especially the time the witness saw the offender. This has been tough to speculate because individuals misjudge the period of a brief occasion, particularly if the occurrence is demanding. It has been displayed that time goes slowly for individuals in risk or those who are scared. Therefore, 30 seconds might appear like two months to a terrified eyewitness. Such events might be connected to attention failures believed to occur with heightened physiological stimulation. Research describes that attention failure might lead to people missing something unusual or crucial in the complex visual field (Wulff & Thomas, 2021). In eyewitness testimony, such a result might lead to people missing crucial information, even unusual or crucial central information concerning the case. Such assertion can be related to the idea of the "weapon focus effect," where an individual or eyewitness is basically attracted by the weapon, hence impairing their memory of the individual holding the weapon (Körner et al., 2023). The third issue related to eyewitness testimony and identification is the role of expert testimony in supporting judicial comprehension of eyewitness testimony. Research identifies that eyewitness mistakes are the primary cause of unfair convictions (Wise & Kehn, 2020). However, attorneys, law enforcement officers, and judges need more familiarity of eyewitness influences, which reduces their capability to help jurors assess the reliability of eyewitnesses. Moreover, to limit the effects of eyewitness errors, criminal justice systems need safeguards that can improve juror's capability to evaluate eyewitness reliability. However, more than legal safeguards for such purposes, including a motion to suppress eyewitness identification, cross-examination, voir dire, and jury instructions, are needed to improve juror's evaluation of eyewitnesses (Jones et al., 2017). Therefore, studies have suggested that eyewitness experts can act as safeguards against erroneous eyewitness testimony to offer jurors existing, thorough scientific data about human recollection and eyewitness influences (Wise & Kehn, 2020). However, reports still show that expert opinions might produce jurors' skepticism, especially if they need help understanding how to apply their enlarged information to the case. Such assertion questions the reliability of expert opinions in eyewitnesses (Modjadidi & Kovera, 2018). Eyewitness Testimony and the Legal System The cases of, "Neil v. Biggers (1972) and Manson v. Braithwaite" (1977) remain the crucial judicial conversation on eyewitness identification. Manson discourses the rationality of eyewitness identification offered under faulty approaches. These two cases predisposed the court to highlight five diverse influences when assessing the precision of eyewitness identification. Such influences include: "the witness's opportunity to view the perpetrator, the witness's level of attention, the accuracy of the witness's previous description of the offender, the witness's degree of certainty, and the amount of time between witnessing the crime and making the identification"(Modjadidi & Kovera, 2018). Even though such factors might appear to be simple to employ, in certainty, they are not simply appropriate to real wrongdoings. It is difficult to assess a witness's point of consideration and their chance to see the criminal. Moreover, the self-reports of eyewitnesses require to be trusted on to reflect on three of the five Manson measures, which involve certaint...