Eye Witness Testimony: Is it Always Accurate in Criminal Trial?

Imagine being convicted of a crime you did not commit because a single witness insists that they saw you do it. How is it possible for an innocent person to be found guilty? Is the eyewitness lying? Is it a case of mistaken identity?

Now, imagine that you witnessed a crime. The police have shown you a lineup of photos and asked you to identify the suspect. Could you be 100% certain that the person you think committed the crime is the real perpetrator? How would you feel if you later learned that the person you were certain was the suspect was actually innocent—and that you misidentified them?

In a legal sense, eyewitness testimony refers to an individual’s firsthand account of an event that they witnessed (usually one that is suspected to be or considered to be a crime).

An “eyewitness” is typically a victim or bystander who was present at an event that is under criminal investigation (such as a robbery, assault, or murder). “Testimony” is that person’s description of what they observed during the event, including those present who were involved in the crime. 

It’s a scenario we see in movies all the time: the accused stands trial for a heinous crime and the prosecution calls an eyewitness to the stand to testify against him.

The eyewitness takes the stand, swears to tell the truth, and then proceeds to recount what he or she saw. But is eye witness testimony always accurate? Can people really remember everything they see? In this blog post, we will explore eye witness testimony and discuss its accuracy in criminal trials.

Direct Evidence is the Best Evidence

It’s no secret that eyewitness testimony can be fallible. Memory is not perfect and people often times do not remember everything they see. Additionally, people’s memories can be influenced by outside factors such as stress, anxiety, or even leading questions from the police.

However, despite its imperfections, eyewitness testimony is still considered to be direct evidence in a criminal trial. This means that it is evidence that is based on what the witness actually saw or heard (as opposed to circumstantial evidence which is based on inferences). Because of this, eyewitness testimony carries a lot of weight in a criminal trial.

One example of where eyewitness testimony was key in a criminal trial was in the case of People v. LeGrand (2010). In this case, the defendant was charged with first degree murder and the only evidence against him was the testimony of two eyewitnesses.

Both witnesses testified that they saw the defendant shoot the victim. However, both witnesses also had some inconsistencies in their testimonies. One witness said that she saw the defendant shoot the victim in the head while the other said he shot him in the chest.

Despite these inconsistencies, the jury ultimately convicted the defendant based on their testimony. This just goes to show how important eyewitness testimony can be in a criminal trial.

While eyewitness testimony is not perfect, it is still considered to be direct evidence and therefore carries a lot of weight in a criminal trial. In some cases, it may be the only evidence against the defendant. It is important to remember, however, that eyewitness testimony can be fallible and should not be the only evidence considered when making a decision in a criminal trial.

Competence and Compellability of a Witness

In order for eyewitness testimony to be admissible in a criminal trial, the witness must be competent. This means that the witness must have the mental capacity to understand the oath or affirmation and must be able to communicate their testimony.

A person who does not have the mental capacity to understand the oath or affirmation (such as a child) is not considered a competent witness.

Additionally, a person who cannot communicate their testimony due to a physical disability (such as someone who is deaf or mute) is also not considered a competent witness.

If a witness is found to be competent, they will then be asked to take an oath or affirmation. This oath or affirmation requires the witness to swear or affirm that they will tell the truth.

Once a witness has been found to be competent and has taken the oath or affirmation, they are considered a compellable witness. This means that the witness can be forced to testify in court.

In some cases, a witness may not want to testify because they are afraid of retaliation from the defendant or his associates. In these cases, the court may provide the witness with immunity which means that they cannot be prosecuted for any crimes that they reveal during their testimony.

Competence and compellability are important factors in determining whether or not eyewitness testimony will be admissible in a criminal trial. If a witness is not competent or compellable, their testimony will not be allowed in court.

Factors That Can Make Eye Withness Testimony Unreliable 

There are a number of factors that can make eyewitness testimony less reliable. One of the most important factors is stress.

Stress

There are a number of factors that can make eyewitness testimony less reliable. One of the most important factors is stress. Stress can cause a witness to recall an event differently than it actually happened. This is because stress can cause the witness to focus on certain details while forgetting others.

Stress can also cause the witness to fill in gaps in their memory with information that is not accurate. One study found that witnesses who were under stress were more likely to incorrectly identify a weapon as being present when it was not actually there.

This just goes to show how stress can impact a witness’s ability to accurately recall an event. If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime, it is important to remember that eyewitness testimony may be less reliable if the witness was under stress at the time of the event.

Circumstances Around The Scene of The Crime

Lighting, Noise, the time the witness had to observe the event, and distance from the event can all impact a witness’s ability to accurately recall what happened.

For example, if a crime took place at night, the witness may not be able to see as well as they would during the day. This could impact their ability to identify the perpetrator.

Additionally, if there was a lot of noise at the time of the crime, the witness may not be able to hear everything that was said. This could impact their ability to identify what happened and who was involved.

It is important to remember that these factors can impact a witness’s testimony even if they are competent and compellable.

Limitations of Human Memory

Human memory is often viewed as static, but in reality, memories of perceptual experiences are not necessarily fixed. According to Studies, in a comprehensive report on eyewitness testimony, memories may become distorted or degraded when they are initially made or when they are later recalled.

It is also important to remember that human memory is not perfect. Memory can be affected by a number of things including emotion, stress, alcohol, drugs, and sleep deprivation.

Memories may also evolve to accommodate new information. In all of these cases, a person may not realize that his or her memories have undergone any changes

Personal Biases and Individual Prejudices

Personal biases and individual prejudices can also impact a witness’s testimony. For example, if a witness is biased against the defendant, they may be more likely to identify the defendant as the perpetrator even if they are not sure.

Additionally, if a witness has a personal prejudice against the victim, they may be less likely to believe that the victim was actually harmed or that the crime was as serious as it was.

These biases and prejudices can impact a witness’s ability to accurately recall an event and provide accurate testimony in court.

The personality of The Witness

The personality of the witness can also impact their testimony. For example, a witness who is shy or introverted may be less likely to come forward with information about a crime.

Additionally, a witness who is easily suggestible may be more likely to change their story if they are pressured by law enforcement or the prosecutor.

It is important to remember that all witnesses are different and that each witness will have their own set of biases, prejudices, and personality traits that could impact their testimony.

Line of Questioning, Parade Arrangements and Prosecutorial Processes

How a witness is questioned can also impact their testimony. For example, if a witness is asked leading questions, they may be more likely to give the answer that the questioner wants.

Even if an eyewitness observes a scene clearly and remembers it precisely, her or his memories may become distorted during poorly managed identification procedures. The information that authorities provide to eyewitnesses, whether deliberately or accidentally, can “contaminate” their memories.

  • Allowing police officers who know the identity of the suspect to conduct lineups. These officers may inadvertently give an eyewitness cues that predispose her or him to pick the suspect.
  • Implying that the perpetrator must be present in the lineup. Authorities should instead advise eyewitnesses that the perpetrator may not appear and that the investigation will continue regardless of whether a suspect is identified.
  • Conducting lineup procedures without recording them. A recording can capture any admissions or errors on the part of authorities that may influence an eyewitness’s memories and identification of a suspect.

Unfortunately, many practices that can allow eyewitness memories to become contaminated remain widely used, even in cases involving the most serious felony criminal charges.

Misrepresentation During Trial

The way that eyewitness testimony is used in trial can also undermine its accuracy. For example, law enforcement authorities may present an identification as certain even if the witness did not express a high level of confidence when he or she made the identification. 

Similarly, a testifying eyewitness who has received confirming feedback from authorities may have a high level of certainty in an identification that is actually incorrect.

Additionally, prosecutors may use an eyewitness’s testimony to suggest that other evidence is more reliable than it actually is.

For example, if an eyewitness identifies the defendant in a lineup, the prosecutor may argue that this identification proves that the defendant is guilty, even though there are many other possible explanations for why the witness may have identified the defendant.

Questioning Eyewitness Testimony

It is important to remember that eyewitness testimony is just one piece of evidence in a criminal trial.

Prosecutors should not rely solely on eyewitness testimony to convict a defendant.

Instead, they should consider all of the evidence in a case, including physical evidence, video footage, and other witnesses’s testimonies, before making a decision about whether to charge someone with a crime.

When questioning an eyewitness’s testimony, it is important to consider the following factors:

The witness’s level of confidence: A witness who is very confident in their identification is more likely to be accurate than a witness who is not confident.

The witness’s level of certainty: A witness who expresses certainty when making an identification is more likely to be accurate than a witness who does not express certainty.

The witness’s ability to remember: A witness who remembers details about the event is more likely to be accurate than a witness who does not remember any details.

The witnesses’ biases, prejudices, and personality traits: A witness whose biases, prejudices, and personality traits could impact their testimony should be questioned with caution.

It is also important to consider the line of questioning that was used when the witness was interviewed, as well as the parade arrangements and prosecutorial processes that were used during the trial.

If any of these factors cast doubt on the accuracy of an eyewitness’s testimony, then prosecutors should not rely on that testimony to convict a defendant.

Other Types of Evidence

DNA Evidence

The advent of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) evidence is one of the best examples of how much technology has altered the criminal justice landscape, particularly its use to exonerate the falsely convicted. 

DNA evidence technically doesn’t pinpoint a single suspect, but rather narrows it down to just a few possibilities within the human population. However, it’s extremely accurate and useful as long as it is handled and analyzed properly.

Forensic science, also known as criminalistics, is the application of science to criminal and civil laws, mainly—on the criminal side—during criminal investigation, as governed by the legal standards of admissible evidence and criminal procedure.

Assuming that investigators properly collect and handle biological evidence and forensic scientists employ accepted methods and conduct the analysis correctly, DNA evidence is extremely accurate. 

The chances of one individual’s DNA profile matching another person’s are extremely small — about one in a billion by some estimates (but there is quite a bit of debate about this). Compared to fingerprinting or eyewitness testimony, which both have inherent flaws and inaccuracies, DNA evidence is a highly effective way to match a suspect to biological samples collected during a criminal investigation.

Because of its accuracy, criminal lawyers increasingly rely on this type of evidence to prove a defendant’s guilt or innocence. This type of evidence has also exonerated people through postconviction analysis of biological samples. Since DNA analysis didn’t exist until recently, a re-examination of evidence collected during older investigations can reveal that the DNA profile of the person convicted of the crime does not match the DNA profile from biological samples collected at crime scenes.

Documentary Evidence

Documentary evidence is any physical material that contains writing or print. It includes items such as handwritten notes, typed documents, newspapers, books, photographs, maps, and diagrams. This type of evidence can be used to prove the existence of a contract or crime, as well as to establish a person’s identity.

For example, if two people are arguing over whether they had an agreement in place, each party can present documentary evidence to support their respective claims. One person might submit a signed contract while the other might submit emails between the parties that discuss the terms of the agreement. In this case, the court would likely give more weight to the signed contract than the email exchange because it is a more formal document that appears to be binding on both parties.

Similarly, if someone is on trial for a crime, the prosecution might submit a police report that contains the victim’s statement as documentary evidence. The defense might then try to undermine the credibility of the victim by presenting other documents that show the victim has made false statements in the past.

In order to be admissible in court, documentary evidence must be relevant and authenticated. Relevant evidence is evidence that has a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 

Authenticated evidence is evidence that has been shown to be what it purports to be. For example, an email can be authenticated by showing that it was sent from one person’s email account to another person’s email account.

There are a few different ways that documentary evidence can be authenticated, but the most common method is through testimony from a witness with knowledge. This means that someone who saw the document being created or received would need to testify in court about what they saw.

The witness would also need to establish that they believe the document is what it purports to be. For example, if an email is being submitted as evidence, the witness would need to testify that they saw the sender create the email and send it to the recipient. The witness would also need to say that, based on their knowledge of the sender and recipient, they believe that the email is genuine and not forged.

Another way to authenticate documentary evidence is through the use of a certified copy. A certified copy is a copy of an original document that has been signed by a person with authority to certify that it is a true and accurate copy of the original. For example, if a birth certificate is being submitted as evidence, the court will usually require a certified copy that has been signed by the registrar of births, deaths, and marriages.

If you are submitting documentary evidence in court, it is important to make sure that it has been properly authenticated. Otherwise, there is a risk that the judge will not consider it when making their decision.

When presenting documentary evidence in court, it’s important to ensure that the material is both relevant and authenticated. Relevant evidence is evidence that has a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Authenticated evidence is evidence that has been shown to be what it purports to be.

Circumstantial Evidence

In addition to documentary evidence, there is also circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that allows a trier of fact to infer the existence of a fact. This type of evidence is often used in cases where direct evidence is not available.

For example, if a person is on trial for murder, the prosecution might not have any witnesses who saw the crime being committed. However, they might have circumstantial evidence that shows that the defendant had motive and opportunity to commit the crime.

This might include things like witness testimony about threats made by the defendant towards the victim or CCTV footage showing the defendant near the victim’s house around the time of the murder.

While circumstantial evidence can be helpful in proving guilt, it can also be open to interpretation. This means that there is a risk that the jury will not be able to agree on what the evidence shows.

When presenting circumstantial evidence in court, it is important to make sure that there is enough evidence to support your argument. Otherwise, there is a risk that the jury will not be able to reach a verdict.

Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is evidence that is based on what someone has heard from another person. This type of evidence is often not admissible in court because it is considered to be less reliable than other types of evidence.

For example, if a witness testifies that they heard the defendant confess to the crime, this would be considered hearsay evidence. The jury would not be able to judge the reliability of the confession because they did not hear it themselves.

There are some exceptions to the rule against hearsay evidence. These exceptions allow hearsay evidence to be admitted in court if it meets certain requirements.

For example, one exception is if the declarant is unavailable to testify. This means that the person who made the statement is unable to come to court to testify. The exception would only apply if the declarant is unavailable to testify because they are dead, have a mental illness, or are out of the country.

When presenting hearsay evidence in court, it’s important to make sure that it meets one of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay evidence. Otherwise, there is a risk that the judge will not allow it to be presented in court.

Similar Facts Evidence

Similar facts evidence is evidence that shows that the defendant has committed a similar crime in the past. This type of evidence is often used in cases where the defendant is accused of a crime that they have not been convicted of before.

For example, if the defendant is on trial for burglary, the prosecution might try to use similar facts evidence to show that the defendant has committed similar crimes in the past. This might include things like witness testimony about previous burglaries committed by the defendant or CCTV footage of the defendant committing a burglary.

While similar facts evidence can be helpful in proving guilt, it can also be open to interpretation. This means that there is a risk that the jury will not be able to agree on what the evidence shows.

When presenting similar facts evidence in court, it is important to make sure that there is enough evidence to support your argument. Otherwise, there is a risk that the jury will not be able to reach a verdict.

Demonstrative Evidence

Demonstrative evidence is physical evidence that is used to help explain a concept. This type of evidence is often used in cases where the jury needs to see something in order to understand it.

For example, if the defendant is on trial for assault, the prosecution might use demonstrative evidence to show how the victim was injured. This might include things like photos of the victim’s injuries or a diagram of where the victim was hit.

While demonstrative evidence can be helpful in explaining a concept, it can also be open to interpretation. This means that there is a risk that the jury will not be able to agree on what the evidence shows.

When presenting demonstrative evidence in court, it is important to make sure that there is enough evidence to support your argument. Otherwise, there is a risk that the jury will not be able to reach a verdict.

Digital evidence

Digital evidence is any type of evidence that is stored on a computer or other digital device. This type of evidence is often used in cases where the crime was committed using a computer or other digital device.

For example, if the defendant is on trial for fraud, the prosecution might use digital evidence to show that the defendant created fake accounts on social media. This might include things like screenshots of the fake accounts or messages between the defendant and their accomplices.

While digital evidence can be helpful in proving guilt, it can also be open to interpretation. This means that there is a risk that the jury will not be able to agree on what the evidence shows.

When presenting digital evidence in court, it’s important to make sure that it is clear and easy to understand. Otherwise, there is a risk that the jury will not be able to reach a verdict.

Admissibility, Inadmissibility, and Weight of Evidence:

Admissibility of Evidence

Admissibility is the legal term for evidence that can be presented in court. In order to be admissible, evidence must be relevant and reliable.

Relevant evidence is evidence that has a bearing on the case. For example, if the defendant is on trial for murder, evidence that the defendant was seen buying a gun two days before the murder would be relevant.

Reliable evidence is evidence that can be trusted. For example, eyewitness testimony is typically considered to be more reliable than hearsay testimony.

Innadmissible Evidence

Inadmissible evidence is any type of evidence that cannot be presented in court. This might include things like hearsay testimony or character witness testimony.

Weight of Evidence

The weight of evidence is how important the jury thinks the evidence is. For example, if the only evidence against the defendant is a single eyewitness testimony, the jury might not think that this evidence is very important.

However, if there is other evidence to corroborate the eyewitness testimony, such as CCTV footage of the defendant at the scene of the crime, then the jury might give this evidence more weight.

When deciding how much weight to give to evidence, juries will often look at things like how reliable they think the evidence is and how relevant it is to the case.

In order for evidence to be admissible in court, it must be both relevant and reliable. Relevant evidence is any information that has a bearing on the case. Reliable evidence is information that can be trusted.

When deciding how much weight to give to evidence, juries will often look at things like how reliable they think the evidence is and how relevant it is to the case.

If you are presenting evidence in court, it is important to make sure that it meets these criteria. Otherwise, there is a risk that the jury will not be able to reach a verdict.

Leave a Comment