Abstract
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.)."

Tags:reliability, court, jury, trial

Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that eyewitness testimony plays a vital role in the prosecution of crimes in the United States, as thousands and thousands of suspects face indictment based on eyewitness identification evidence each year. Yet, much of the information is considered faulty. This paper takes a look at the reliability of eyewitness witnesses. The writer examines the credibility of eyewitnesses and focuses on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in relation to cross-racial identifications. The writer maintains that if police do not keep witnesses away from news and other people's testimony, there is a greater chance that their memory will be altered. The writer concludes that memory is an ongoing process, not a static state and it is a process that never happens the same way twice.

Outline:
"Cross-Racial Identification of Defendants in Criminal Cases: A Proposed Model Jury Instruction."
"Eyewitness Memory in Context: Toward a Systematic Understanding of Eyewitness Evidence"
"Interviewing Witnesses: The Effect of Forced Confabulation on Event Memory"

From the Paper
" In comparing these three articles, it can be said, overall, that eyewitness testimony is not reliable a lot of the time. There are so many variables that go into what we remember, and if we remember it correctly. The first article related to cross-racial eyewitness accounts can be compared to the second about eyewitness memory in context. The first article stated that research has shown it is more difficult for members of one race to accurately identify perpetrators of another race. The second article stated as well that so much of eyewitness testimony depends on factors that we cannot control - such as culture. This research leads us to believe that there is not much we can do to make eyewitness testimony reliable. When the credibility is related to factors outside of our control -such as gender, race, etc., this makes it nearly impossible to get an true testimony most of the time; of course, there could be exceptions to this."

Tags:remember, defense, perception, witness

Abstract
The paper examines the case of John Demjanjuk, a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, who was stripped of his American citizenship and extradited to Israel for suspicion of war crimes during World War Two. The paper asserts that the trial was a farce from beginning to end, with forged evidence and unreliable witnesses. The paper goes through the testimony of the witnesses and shows how their memories failed them due to aging, unconscious transference or confidence malleability. The paper emphasizes that any jury, judge, or attorney must be aware of the limitations of eyewitness testimony. According to the paper, however, eyewitness memory cannot be completely disregarded; memory can often be the only key to bring a case to justice.

From the Paper
"In October 1975, one of the most infamous international criminal cases of the last century occurred in Israel. John Demjanjuk, a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, was stripped of his hard-won American citizenship and extradited to Israel for suspicion of war crimes during World War Two. The case became a sixteen-year ordeal in which Demjanjuk was convicted and then ultimately acquitted of the crimes of which he was accused. The court case was called a "show trial" and became a prime example of the malleability of memory in eyewitness psychology."

Tags:testimony, witnesses, credibility, retention, events

From the Paper
"Although eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, its quality is not always poor. Previous research shows that the type of testimony indicating the most accurate identification involves the unstructured recall of actions. Eyewitness testimony is still a human phenomenon, and as a result, it is subject to many external and internal factors. For instance, whether the "witnessing" took place in light or dark conditions, whether the lineup is live or on videotape, the capacity of short-term memory, unconscious transference, and a host of other psychological and external factors may all affect the degree of accuracy of the eyewitness testimony. This report will take a close look at these factors affecting eyewitness testimony, in addition to illustrating how innocent bystanders can sometimes be identified by eyewitness testimony as the suspected criminal(s)."

Abstract
This paper explains that, in general, eyewitnesses are less accurate because the eyewitness can make mistakes from the time a crime occurs, through the investigation, during lineup identification, and even on the witness stand. The author points out examples in which eyewitness identification was racially biased. The paper concludes that, although racial bias can interfere with eyewitness identification, there are circumstances in which it does not; therefore, it is important that eyewitness testimony not be stricken from the courtroom, but the procedures by which it is permissible ought to be made more stringent.

From the Paper
"Mistaken identification can help to put innocent people in prison. In a 2000 study of seventy-four wrongful conviction cases, 81 percent were due (at least in part) to mistaken identification. Mistaken identification can be caused by the factors discussed in the preceding paragraph, but it can also be caused by cross-racial identification. This problem is called "racial skew". Racial skew was the cause of the wrongful conviction of Johnny Frederick and David Keaton in Florida in 1971."

Tags:cross-racial, skew, mistaken, accuracy, permissible

Abstract
This paper looks at the confusing tangle of data surrounding whether or not one's accent impacts upon one's perceived credibility in the eyes of others. The writer concludes that, while not unanimous, there does appear to be tentative support for the hypothesis that how people speak is almost as important as what they say. The writer maintains that it should also not be overlooked that ethnicity in general still plays a role in the "credibility gap" many minorities continue to grapple with in the eyes of others.

From the Paper
"The following paper will look at the confusing tangle of data surrounding whether or not one's accent impacts upon one's perceived credibility in the eyes of others. Poring over a number of representative studies, the next several pages will ultimately conclude that, while not unanimous, there does appear to be tentative support for the hypothesis that how people speak is almost as important (at least for a sizable number of the population) as what they say; it should also not be overlooked that ethnicity in general still plays a role in the "credibility gap" many minorities continue to grapple with in the eyes of others."

Tags:accent, credibility, testimony

Abstract
The paper discusses the testimony of a police officer at a criminal trial and discusses if it followed the guidelines in a text book on police testimony.

From the Paper
"The purpose of this report is to analyze testimony given by a police officer in the case of "Ragland v. State of Maryland", a case heard in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. In this case, Ragland was convicted of the distribution of a controlled dangerous substance and at trial, two police officers offered lay opinion testimony based on their training and experience that a particular series of events had constituted a drug transaction. Ragland appealed on the grounds that such evidence..."

Tags:testimony, criminal trial

Abstract
This paper consists of a literature review of research into eye witness reliability in identifying suspects. There is conflicting research as to the causes of inaccuate memories, and the need for psychologist expert testimony at trial. The Innocence Project found that 75% of the first 180 people exhonerated by DNA evidence were wrongly convicted primarily due to false eye witness identification.

From the Paper
"This paper shall reviews research into eye witness identification reliability. The fundamental right of a citizen to a jury trial is firmly rooted in the Constitution. Recently, with the advent of DNA testing, many innocent people that were convicted primarily on eye witness testimony, have been exonerated of their crimes. The courts are very suspect of expert testimony 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. There is research on both sides of the issue, ..."

Tags:accuracy, conviction, justice, evidence