Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony

Paper Summary:

This paper reviews research into eyewitness identification credibility. It points out that, with the advent of DNA testing, many innocent people that were convicted primarily on eyewitness testimonies, have been exonerated of their crimes. The paper also adds that the courts are very suspect of expert testimonies by psychologists, and precedent is strongly in favor of limiting this type of testimony. The courts are in favor of letting the jury determine the accuracy of witnesses, not having psychologists testify as to their believability. The paper concludes that though there is research on both sides of the issue, there is clearly a need for additional research.

From the Paper:

"The research conducted by Ebbensen and Konecni go directly to these most vital aspects of the criminal justice system in the paper entitled "Eyewitness Memory Research: Probative v. Prejudicial Value". The conflict between psychology and the legal system appears at an impasse. The legal system thrives on eyewitness or first hand knowledge of events, it is at its very Constitutional foundation. Psychologists have made numerous scientific inquiries into the fundamental unreliability of memory and how memories can be tainted by prior events and by subsequent events. Memories fade, but nobody is sure how fast this occurs, and if there is a practical way to measure it. The legal system depends on facts presented to juries to arrive at justice, psychologists have generated numerous studies to present the facts of human memory, yet the courts rarely allow this testimony into the courtroom. In the Libby case, the core of the case was the reliability of Libby's memory when recounting events to federal investigators. Libby was accused of lying to the federal investigators, and was prepared to offer scientific evidence of his poor memory. The judge in the case excluded the testimony, again citing the Daubert rule, not wanting a psychologist to tell the jury how to rule on the guilt or innocence of Libby (Erickson, 2007, n.p.)."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Ebbesen, Ebbe B., Konecni, Vladimir J. (1997). Eyewitness Memory Research: Probative v. Prejudicial Value. University of California, San Diego - Psychology Department website. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www-psy.ucsd.edu/~eebbesen/prejvprob.html
• Erickson, Steven K. (2007). Memory, Credibility, and Experts. Criminal Justice Legal Foundation website. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from www.crimeandconsequences.com/2006/12/memory_credibility_and_experts_1.html
• Eyewitness Misidentification. (2007) Innocence Project website. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
• Flowe, Heather D. (2006) Eyewitness Identification: Cognitive Aspects. University of California, San Diego - Psychology Department website. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://psy.ucsd.edu/~hflowe/eyepsych.htm
• Flowe, Heather D. (2006) Psychological Expert Testimony. University of California, San Diego - Psychology Department website. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://psy.ucsd.edu/~hflowe/ psychexp.htm

More papers on Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony:

• Persuasive Essay # 116315 : "The Reliability of Eyewitness Memory"
• Analytical Essay # 116344 : "Eyewitness Reliability"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: