Importance Of The Eyewitness Testimony

Within the U.S. legal system, one of the main ways to help determine a possible suspect when multiple culprits are in question is by eyewitness testimony and criminal lineups. Eyewitness testimonies have proven, time and time again, to be possible turning points within tense cases. Before the use of DNA and forensics to help prove possible culprits, almost the only thing that the jurors had to assist them in determining a verdict would be those of eyewitnesses. Over time studies have been conducted to help prove confidence as well as accuracy when it comes to eyewitness testimony, but the same question still arises, how credible are these witnesses?

It has been reported that 70% of 349 cases were overturned due to a false accusation from very strong eyewitness testimony. This statistic has now dropped because psychologists have started to research how to determine who is a credible witness and who is not. Based on loads of studies researchers have figured out two main trends when it comes down to eyewitnesses. The first trend would be that there is an extremely strong correlation between the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies and confidence that is seen from the witnesses, and the second trend is that although these witnesses show high levels of confidence and accuracy without the proper procedure the credibility of said witnesses deteriorates quickly. Since these procedures have been in place for some time now, they have become routine for every time an eyewitness is needed for anything, so the eyewitness reports are seen as being more reliable now.

On the contrary, some courts still have issues with eyewitness testimonies and lineups because a plethora of other variables can come into play when determining a person’s confidence and accuracy. One of the major issues that are seen is the idea of positive affirmation after a witness decides the possible culprit. For example, if during a lineup a witness makes a decision of who the possible suspect may be, and the investigating officer then tells the witness, “You did a good job, that was a very smart decision,” then it is going to boost the confidence of the witness regardless of the accuracy of the choice. That means going into the trial that said witness will seem more confident because of the positive affirmations they have received from an officer. That confidence can completely throw off a jury’s mentality on whether to believe the witness or to disregard what they have to say.

The idea of eyewitness testimony being easily trusted is a major issue that needs to be looked at more in-depth. The power that these testimonies can hold over an innocent person going to jail or not is extremely intricate to a case. The fact that judges can believe someone based on their basic confidence or idea of what happened can almost completely determine a person’s fate and is a serious matter. Personally, I feel like the confidence of a person should not be a determining factor at all, and it should be based on other variables such as, the view of the suspects face, their location during the incident, duration of time at the incident, etc. Some people have the power to fake confidence and because of that alone, we cannot trust and allow their confidence to be the only thing taken into account. More studies should take place on the effect of eyewitness testimony where the eyewitness is taken in at the time of the incident and questioned before their mind can be corrupted or swayed by others.