Despite the active development of modern forensic techniques, such as DNA tests, eyewitness identification is still actively used by the police as evidence of a defendant’s guilt. On the one hand, if the victim or witness is sure that he remembers the offender’s appearance, this data can help the investigation identify the suspect. On the other hand, modern ideas about human memory and its accuracy cast doubt on the absolute veracity of such testimony. Therefore, for the results of eyewitness identifications to be reliable, it is necessary to minimize the likelihood of error and improve the procedure for conducting this event.
Problems associated with eyewitness identification can be connected with the witness and law enforcement officials. The main problem is that the witness, especially when he is also the victim, can be sure that he accurately remembers the signs of the offender. However, this is likely not the case because the memorization process will be disrupted in a stressful situation, and memories may be fragmented and distorted. This is especially dangerous in combination with a violation of the identification procedure since, under the voluntary or involuntary influence of the police, it can lead to false identification. This explains that 69% of wrongful convictions in the US are related to eyewitness identification (Eyewitness Identification Reform, n.d.). Another problem comes from the police, who may purposely or accidentally push the witness to the wrong choice and reinforce their false belief that an innocent person is guilty.
The hero of the presented video, Mr. Cotton, was acquitted based on the testimony of a female victim in a rape case. However, he served his sentence of 11 years, although he was innocent, which was subsequently proven by a DNA test (Innocence Project, 2011). The victim made this mistake primarily because her memories of the rapist became fuzzy and fragmented in a state of stress and trauma. Combined with positive reinforcement from the police, who confirmed that she was “correct” in both the photo and lineup tests, this led to false identification and a misjudgment.
The lineup procedure described in the video contained several organizational and procedural errors that affected the result. According to the investigator, in the first test with a photo, the injured woman rather quickly chose Mr. Cotton’s photo, confirming the investigation’s correctness that he committed the rape. The error consisted, firstly, of the employee who conducted the eyewitness identification knowing who the suspect was and could, by his behavior, push the witness to the wrong choice. Secondly, during the identification with real people, the suspect was included in the first lineup, strengthening the victim’s confidence that he attacked her. Finally, the video provides no evidence that the identification process was documented. A proper lineup procedure would include the “double-blind” organization of the process with clear and correct instructions for the witness. Documenting the process or fixing it on video or audio media with subsequent revision of the recording by a control group of employees could also help assess the procedure’s correctness and repeat it if necessary.
A complete rejection of eyewitness identification at this stage seems impossible since the testimony of witnesses or victims and the details they may remember can serve as a starting point in the search for suspects. The benefits that such testimony can bring cannot be underestimated. However, establishing the definitive guilt of a suspect based on eyewitness identification alone now seems insufficient and risky. It is better to use additional, less subjective methods of proving guilt and optimize the identification process as much as possible to minimize possible errors.
References
Eyewitness identification reform – Innocence Project. Innocence Project. (n.d.). Web.
Innocence Project. (2011). Eyewitness identification – Getting it right. Web.