Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony Eyewitness testimonies have played a major role in many wrongful court convictions. There is a great difficulty faced by many eyewitnesses when identifying perpetrators of crimes. Additionally, existing procedural safeguards are insufficient to put off erroneous convictions caused by eyewitness errors. It is therefore important to have a scientific method that can enhance reliability on eyewitness testimony when making a judgement in a court of law. Based on thirty years of broad scientific study on eyewitness testimony, this article delineates a tripartite solution to eyewitness error. This is necessitated by the fact that criminal justice system mainly relies on eyewitness evidence to convict suspects. Often, eyewitness evidence happens to be the only evidence available and if appropriately handled it can be very reliable. The proposed solution maintains accessibility of eyewitness substantiation, while at the same time providing safeguards to uphold its accuracy and reliability. Court of laws and criminal justice system can rely on eyewitness Testimony. This is the hypothesis that will be tested through research on the internet, books and other relevant sources. The expected outcome of this research paper, it will be easy to tell whether or not jurors can rely on eyewitness testimony. In this tripartite solution, the first component is allowing experts testimonies when the sole or primary evidence against the accused is eyewitness. This involves using a highly qualified psychologist who has done enough research and has theories about eyewitness behaviour (Richard et al, 2007). The expert explains to the court how human memory works, the applicable eyewitness research and factors that may affect the authenticity of the eyewitness testimony. The expert is not required to express a judgment on the final issue i.e. (eyewitness accuracy). A recent research implies that judges are not well positioned to determine the knowledge level of the juror regarding eyewitness factors, because they have limited understanding of testimonies presented by the eyewitness. When judges were examined on same testimonies given to eyewitness experts, judges’ response significantly diverged from experts’ response. Judges showed little consensus in areas of relating accuracy and eyewitness confidence at trial (Richard et al, 2007). Many judges are not familiar with forgetting curve and simultaneous curves which studies have shown that they contribute to wrongful convictions. In the same research there was an implication that experience in both judicial and legal matters could not mean that one is automatically knowledgeable about eyewitness factors. The second constituent of this tripartite solution involves convalescing processes for gathering eyewitness evidence by carrying out eyewitness interviews and identifying practices in ways that apply best procedures formulated by scientific studies in the field. It is incredible to know that scientific methods are very instrumental in doing away with risks that are brought by false identification. In most cases, eyewitness errors are as a result of poor interview techniques used by the law enforcement officials. Research has shown that it is possible to reduce eyewitness error if the law enforcement officials conduct interviews in ways that help them maximize information obtained from the interviewees without polluting their crime memory (John, 2014). Therefore, it is important to collect eyewitness evidence by using sound psychological methods. A good example is cognitive interviews that are geared towards addressing a pressing problem. The law enforcement officials have made three errors while conducting eyewitness interviews. They include failure to obtain enough information from the witness in relation to the crime, they distort eyewitness’s crime scene memory and they submit to pressures from the system which makes them collect evidence with bias from the prosecution side (John, 2014). Therefore for this second tripartite solution, psychologists have suggested measures to enhance eye witness interviews. To start with, law enforcement officers are not supposed to know the identity of the alleged suspects to stop them from prejudicing eyewitness answers to convict the suspect. On the other hand, defence attorneys should be present when the witness is being cross examined by law enforcement officers. This helps the jurors, attorneys and judges to be informed of issues that may occur during interviews. The third and final component of this solution involves educating criminal justice systems’ principal participants about eyewitness testimony. Psychological researches have shown that it is necessary to educate the entire criminal justice participants on eyewitness testimony. In the survey, judges were found to have inadequate knowledge on eyewitness factors. Judges who were more conversant with eyewitness factors had plentiful of the ideas that may be essential in reducing eyewitness error. Consequently, superior familiarity with eyewitness factors for the judiciary was related to three attributes. First, allowing greater application of legal safeguards which include expert testimony to familiarize jurors on eyewitness factors (Richard et al, 2007). Second, supposing that jurors have inadequate understanding of eyewitness factors. Lastly, agreeing suspects should be judged exclusively on the foundation of eyewitness testimony merely in outstanding circumstances. Studies indicate that educating police officers, judges, attorneys and jurors about eyewitness testimony will have an impact in reducing eyewitness errors. If principle participants are educated on eyewitness testimony there are significant benefits (Loftus, 1996). For instance, judges who have adequate knowledge on eyewitness testimony are likely to offer directives restrain identification of eyewitness for biased identification practices. In some incidences, judges may come up with jury instructions which conduct trials in a way that experts’ testimony will be insignificant. If attorneys are educated on eyewitness factors, they are in a position to tell when there are suggestive identification procedures and when law officers are contaminating the witness’s crime scene memory (Loftus, 1996). In conclusion, scientific methods have been used to solve daily problems that affect humanity in all fields of nature which include business, Criminal justice, everyday life and Information systems and technology. This article concentrates mainly on reliability of eyewitness evidence which is a field of interest in criminal justice. As stated in the essay, there are issues which have led to eyewitness errors and can be solved through a tripartite solution explained in the essay. First, experts conversant with eyewitness factors should be allowed to give their advise to court as they are well conversant with eyewitness behaviours. Secondly, scientific methods of collection of eyewitness evidence should be employed. Lastly, all participants in the criminal justice system should be educated on eyewitness factors. If this solution can be implemented in criminal justice system, it is easy to rely on eyewitness evidence.

References
John, B. (2014). How reliable is eyewitness testimony? Scientists weigh in Retrieved from http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2014/10/how-reliable-eyewitness-testimony- scientists-weigh Loftus, E.F. (1996) Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge: Harvard University press.
Richard A,W., Kristen A,D., Martin A,S. (2007. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Tripartite Solution to Eyewitness Error , 97(3), 807-871. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7270&co ntext=jclc