While wrongful convictions can happen for
different reasons, faulty eyewitness testimony is the front-runner. In fact, 70% of people exonerated by work of the Innocence Project were
initially convicted on faulty eyewitness reports. These startling numbers cast doubt on the value of eyewitness testimony. Accordingly,
developments in social science research have led a growing majority of forensic
mental health professionals to conclude that eyewitness memory is not failsafe. And contrary to popular opinion, research shows that a number of factors
threaten to influence the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, potentially rendering
it as one of the most fallible forms of testimony.
To combat this, attorneys have sought to introduce expert witnesses to explain to the jury the potential problems in human memory that could render any given eyewitness testimony unreliable. This is based on the assumption that the expert will be able to provide an explanation that can enhance the jurors’ sensitivity to the problematic factors that may influence eyewitness performance. But, the introduction of expert witnesses has been met with resistance by courts for several reasons. One common reason being that expert witnesses are unnecessary because jurors are capable of assessing the accuracy of eyewitness testimony based on common sense and life experiences. As one court put it: “Expert testimony on reliability of witness identification can be of no assistance to a jury because jurors using common sense and their faculties of observation can judge the credibility of an eyewitness identification, especially since deficiencies or inconsistencies in an eyewitness’s testimony can be brought with skillful cross examination.”[1]
MYTH: Common sense and life experiences enable jurors to detect inaccurate eyewitness testimony
To combat this, attorneys have sought to introduce expert witnesses to explain to the jury the potential problems in human memory that could render any given eyewitness testimony unreliable. This is based on the assumption that the expert will be able to provide an explanation that can enhance the jurors’ sensitivity to the problematic factors that may influence eyewitness performance. But, the introduction of expert witnesses has been met with resistance by courts for several reasons. One common reason being that expert witnesses are unnecessary because jurors are capable of assessing the accuracy of eyewitness testimony based on common sense and life experiences. As one court put it: “Expert testimony on reliability of witness identification can be of no assistance to a jury because jurors using common sense and their faculties of observation can judge the credibility of an eyewitness identification, especially since deficiencies or inconsistencies in an eyewitness’s testimony can be brought with skillful cross examination.”[1]
MYTH: Common sense and life experiences enable jurors to detect inaccurate eyewitness testimony
Extensive research reveals that lay
jurors’ understanding of the potential shortcomings of eyewitness memory is either
lacking or misplaced entirely. Jurors have a very limited capability to distinguish
accurate from inaccurate eyewitness testimony. A study was done to compare knowledge
of factors affecting eyewitness accuracy among jurors and eyewitness experts.
Findings showed that jurors disagreed with the experts on over 85% of the
issues. One court got it right when it said: “Despite the fact that jurors may be
familiar from their own experience with factors relevant to the reliability of
eyewitness observation and identification, it cannot be said that psychological
studies regarding the accuracy of an identification are within the ken of the
typical juror.”[2]
These findings indicate that the legal system could benefit
from the introduction of expert witnesses to assist the jury in evaluating the
reliability of such testimony. It is pertinent that courts stay up to date with
social science research, this includes allowing expert witnesses to explain potential shortcomings
of eyewitness memory that lay jurors may not otherwise understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment