Skip to main content

Eyewitness Misidentification

Eyewitness Misidentifications
In our justice system, there are many crucial points where things can go wrong, and an innocent person
can be convicted. Eyewitness testimony is one of those crucial points, which unfortunately happens more
often than we would like to admit. In his book, Garrett focuses on 250 people who were exonerated
through DNA evidence. These 250 people were wrongfully convicted for various reasons, but Garrett
found that eyewitnesses made misidentifications of the perpetrator in 190 of the 250 cases, or 76% of
the cases (Garrett 48, 2012). It is often wondered how a victim could falsely identify the person that
attacked them, if they weren’t wearing a mask, it should be easy to identify your assailant, right? That is
not necessarily true. Of the cases that Garrett studied of those who were wrongfully convicted, he found
a few themes common across them all. For one, Garrett found that in most of the cases, police either
intentionally or unintentionally coerced the eyewitness into picking out a certain suspect from a lineup.
This was done by making suggestive remarks as to who they believe is the perpetrator, by presenting
lineups in a way that made one person stand out more than others, or even conducting a “showup”,
which is when only one person is presented to the witness to make a possible identification. Garrett
found that while most of the eyewitnesses were confident in their identification at the trial, most were
very hesitant about making the identification when first presented with a suspect.
As the video “Eyewitness Testimony” by 60 Minutes pointed out, another crucial problem with
eyewitness testimony is the fragility of memory (Eyewitness Testimony). There are many
factors that take place during an attack that could hinder an eyewitness’ ability to make a
correct identification. As you can imagine, during an attack you might be filled with fear and
adrenaline, and there is too much going on at once to focus on one thing. Things like how
dark it is in the setting, whether the perpetrator was wearing a mask, if the victim was ordered
not to look, or even the witness being focused on a weapon that is present instead of the
perpetrators face, all can hinder the possibility of the witness making a positive identification
(Garret 49, 2012). But even with these factors, witnesses are driven to put the person behind
bars, whatever it takes. This is why, as Garrett points out, witnesses will often choose a person
from a lineup that matches the closest to what they remember the perpetrator looking like.
In order to make eyewitness identifications more accurate, Garrett suggests making lineups
more accurate, in that the suspects shown in the lineup must look somewhat alike, and they
cannot be arranged so one person sticks out more than others. Police should also tell the
witness that the true perpetrator may or may not be present in the lineup, so the witness does
not feel compelled to pick someone in the lineup that looks the closest to the perpetrator. He
suggests that police should also take into consideration the witness’ opportunity to view the
offender, their degree of attention, the passage of time, and cross-racial identifications, when
considering the accuracy of an eyewitness’ identification.


Eyewitness Testimony Part 2 [Video file]. (2012, October 30). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtelV9lmzQc

Garrett, B. (2012). Eyewitness Misidentifications. In Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong (pp. 45-83). Harvard University Press.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Case of Ronald Cotton

The Case of Ronald Cotton The Crime In July of 1984, in North Carolina, a white woman named Jennifer Thompson was sleeping in her apartment when a man cut her phone lines, shattered her porch light, and broke into her apartment. She woke up to the man standing next to her bed, holding a knife to her throat. Over the next half hour, she was brutally raped, but Jennifer made herself study her attacker so, if she ever got the chance, she would be able to identify him and send him to prison. After tricking her assailant into letting her get up, she escaped and went to the hospital. Her assailant fled the scene, only to rape another woman half a mile away. Investigation and Trial With Jennifer’s help, the police were able to create a composite sketch of her attacker, using the details she studied while she was being attacked. After the sketch was released to the public, tips were received about a man named Ronald Cotton who worked in the area, and had a prior felony r...

David Shawn Pope

Voice Comparison Convicts The Crime In July of 1985 in Dallas County, Texas, a man knocked on a woman’s door asking if somebody lived there, and then immediately left. The following morning at 6 AM the woman awoke to find the man standing over her bed with a knife. He assaulted and raped her, and fled the scene. She called the police and reported the crime. In the next following weeks, she was contacted by an anonymous caller who she immediately claimed was the rapist because she recognized his voice. He called several times and the police were able to record a few of the calls. The Investigation The victim was able to help produce a composite sketch of the suspect. David Shawn Pope became a suspect after police saw him around the area and thought he looked similar to the sketch. Pope was presented to the victim multiple times in a photo lineup, along with other similar looking males and no identification was made. After there was no identification, those six peop...

Bitemark case

Arizona v Ray Krone Background             On December 29, 1991, the body of thirty-six year old Kim Ancona was found nude and fatally stabbed in the men’s restroom of the bar she worked at in Phoenix, Arizona. The perpetrator left behind little evidence, only leaving blood at the crime scene which matched the victim’s type and saliva on her body coming from the most common blood type. No semen was found and no DNA testing was done on the blood or saliva. What investigators did rely on was bite-marks on the victim’s breast and neck.             The police learned from a friend of the victim’s that Ancona was to close up the bar with a regular customer, Ray Krone, that previous night. The police immediately asked Krone to make an impression of his teeth on Styrofoam for comparison. Ray Krone had no previous criminal record, had been honorable discharged from the military, and had ...