Johnny J. Stewart Jr.
Strayer University
SCI 110
Professor Nina Walker
July 21, 2014

ABSTRACT
There are many different reasons why the reliability of eyewitness testimony in the United States judicial system today is all but flawed. There is only one way a witness can identify a suspect who has committed a crime, and it is called face to face recognition. Just getting a glimpse, bad weather, and bad lighting can hinder what a person can truly see. There have been several accounts of individuals that have been convicted, imprisoned, and put to death off of flawed testimonies by an eyewitness. In this I will attempt to show you my discussions of several statistics, convictions, exonerations, and key cases that will test the views of anyone when eyewitness testimonies are concerned.

Within the past 30 years crimes were committed, and the people who witness these crimes made the cases have different outcomes. It used to be when a crime was committed, and someone came forward saying, “They have witnessed a crime”. History shows us when it comes to a traumatic experience dealing with crimes; the victims are different and as such react in many different ways. Most individuals panic, some are very calm, while others have no reaction whatsoever. The question has been raised about how reliable an eyewitness testimony truly is. Those who follow crime and courts trials know the stories are familiar and unnerving. Here is one case Cornelius Dupree spent 30 years Texas prison due to a 1979 rape and robbery he did not commit, because of one eyewitness. Cornelius was freed in 2011 through new DNA evidence. Derrick Williams imprison in Florida was freed through DNA evidence after spending 18 years in prison for a rape based on one eyewitness misidentification. Johnny Pinchback, a Texas inmate convicted of a 1984 rape based on one eyewitness misidentification he was freed through DNA testing after 27 years in prison. Alvin Jardine was freed through DNA testing after serving 20 years jailed in Hawaii, again due to eyewitness misidentification. Of the 21 cases on the Innocence Network’s 2011 exoneration report, 19 wrongful convictions involved eyewitness testimony (Innocence Network Report, 2011). This is consistent with statistics showing more than three-quarters of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence relied on faulty eyewitness evidence.
In this research paper of eyewitness testimonies there is no sure way to be one-hundred percent sure of anything that you did not encounter face to face. When an individual has to recall a situation they may change their wording of the particular situation more than a few times. Different things can affect the memory and the visual of a person such as, a weapon being involved, the weather, the difference in race, and how long you wait to actually testify. The longer you wait to recall a memory the worse it will be for you to actually remember the events that truly took place. I believe that all Eyewitnesses testimonies should only be used for face to face events with a victim, and the victim’s violator. The introduction of DNA testing in the 1990 era has eased the system with actually having a more thorough way to pinpoint criminals. Since the 1990 era when DNA testing was first introduced the Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses (Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld, Jan8. 2009). Studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events, and details that did not occur. In the mid-seventies experiments demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory. Test subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked the test subjects questions, falsely introducing the term stop sign into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Experimenters falsely substituted the term yield sign in questions directed to participants who had seen the stop sign slide. Results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. The initial part of the experiment, subjects also seen a slide showing a car accident. Some of the other subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when it hit. The others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they crashed into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word smashed was more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories (Barbara T., George F. April 5, 1999).
I can say that with the introduction of the DNA tests it is much more reliable than that of any eyewitness testimony. We seem to look at the downfalls of having an eyewitness, court proceedings take a very long time, not only does a witness have to remember the events word for word, but depending on the court and proceedings it could actually be years before it ever reaches a court room. Not only would you have to remember the details word for word all over again, but our memory tends to forget, furthermore it makes eyewitness testimony that much more unreliable. Even though eyewitness testimony has proven to be an idea in many cases, where a person’s life and freedom is on the line; the criminal justice system has made some adjustments in order to minimize the mistakes that can come from just relying on a testimony from a witness (Aileen C. May 28, 2012). They have put plans in place to try its best to keep witnesses from feeling or being coerced. Police have been trained to prevent post identification. They police have also added more than a few people to a police lineup to be sure a witness can tell the difference between suspects in question and that of a regular person who has nothing to do with a crime. So even though the system has its flaws, it is not sitting back doing nothing, with all of the cases that had to be over turned due to DNA evidence they are taking better steps in preventing wrongful convictions that were solely based off of eyewitness testimony.
Nothing is 100 percent, not even a DNA test however I would rather have the odds be 99.9 percent correct if I had a choice. An eyewitness testimony in my opinion is valid when a criminal attacks a person, and that person clearly sees the face of the person. I no other way should eyewitness testimony be the deciding factor for the life or freedom of any woman or man. It can be a factor, but in most juries when you have an eyewitness, whatever he/she says is basically the only thing that will matter to a court or jury. If that person was too far away, or race played a part, or it was bad weather, then that would be very unfair and probably wrong. That is the reason why I do not feel it should be the only factor of guilt or innocence.

References

Aileen C. (May 28, 2012). Is Eyewitness Testimony Inherently Unreliable: http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012 -0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html
Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld, (Jan8, 2009). Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ Barbara T., George F. (April 5, 1999). The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony: agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm