Eyewitness misidentification is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system. It occurs when a person incorrectly identifies a suspect in a criminal case, often leading to the conviction of an innocent individual. Misidentification can happen in various forms, such as through police lineups, photo arrays, or even face-to-face identifications in court. Despite being a critical aspect of legal procedures, eyewitness testimony is far from infallible. Understanding why identifications occur and the far-reaching consequences they have on the lives of individuals and the integrity of the justice system is essential.
In this blog post we will explore the science behind eyewitness misidentification, the factors contributing to errors, and strategies to reduce its occurrence.
The Science of Eyewitness Memory
Eyewitness testimony is often treated as one of the most reliable forms of evidence in criminal trials. However, research in psychology has shown that human memory is highly malleable and subject to various cognitive biases, which can affect the accuracy of eyewitness accounts. The human memory system, unlike a video recording, does not perfectly capture every detail. Memories are reconstructive, meaning they are influenced by new information, suggestions, and even the passage of time. These qualities make eyewitness testimony susceptible to errors, especially when witnesses are asked to recall details under stressful or high-stakes circumstances.
The process of memory retrieval is not a straightforward recollection of events. Rather, it involves reconstructing fragmented bits of information and filling in gaps. Eyewitnesses may inadvertently introduce inaccuracies or make errors based on their expectations, beliefs, or suggestions from external sources, including police officers, media or even other witnesses. This makes it clear that while eyewitness testimony can be powerful, it is not always accurate.
What Causes Eyewitness Misidentification?
Several factors contribute to eyewitness misidentification. See: Young v. Conway , 698 F.3d 69 (2nd Cir. 2012). These factors can be broadly categorized into those related to the witness, the perpetrator, and the identification procedure itself.
1. Stress and Trauma
Witnesses often experience stress or trauma when they witness a crime, particularly violent or shocking events. High levels of stress can impair the brain’s ability to accurately encode memories. This can result in distorted or incomplete recollection of details, such as the appearance of the perpetrator. Research shows that eyewitnesses who are under extreme stress are more likely to make errors in identifying suspects.
2. Weapon Focus
The “weapon focus” effect refers to the tendency of eyewitnesses to focus their attention on a weapon during a crime, often at the expense of other details, such as the perpetrator’s face. This phenomenon can significantly reduce the likelihood of accurate identification. If a witness’s attention is concentrated on the weapon, they may not adequately observe the suspect’s physical features, leading to incorrect identification later.
3. Cross-Racial Identification
Eyewitnesses are more likely to misidentify individuals of a different race or ethnicity compared to those of their own race. This phenomenon is known as “own-race-bias” or “cross-race effect.” Studies have shown that people are better at distinguishing faces of their own race, which may be linked to familiarity and greater attention to distinguishing features. As a result, misidentifications in cross-racial situations are more common, and the likelihood of errors increases when a witness is asked to identify a perpetrator of a different racial background.
4. The Passage of Time
As time passes after a crime occurs, the accuracy of an eyewitness’s testimony begins to degrade. Memories can become more distorted, and details may be forgotten or confused with those of other events. Even a short delay between witnessing a crime and making an identification can affect the accuracy of the testimony. Witnesses may also become influenced by media coverage or conversations with others, further distorting their memories.
5. Suggestive Identification Procedures
The methods used during police lineups or photo arrays can also contribute to misidentifications. If the lineup or array is poorly constructive or suggestive, the witness may be more likely to choose someone who does not match the perpetrator. For example, if the suspect stands out too much or is the only person with certain features that resemble the perpetrator, the witness may be pushed toward selecting that individual. Additionally, subtle cues of encouragement from law enforcement officials can also influence a witness’s choice.
6. Confidence and Feedback
Eyewitnesses may become more confident in their identification if they receive positive feedback from law enforcement officers. When a witness is told, “Good job, that’s the person we believe is the perpetrator,” this feedback can increase the witness’s confidence, even if the identification was inaccurate. The psychological effect of this feedback can also influence subsequent actions, such as the witness’s testimony in court. In turn, juries may be more likely to believe a confident witness, even though confidence does not guarantee accuracy.
The Consequences of Eyewitness Misidentification
The consequences of eyewitness misidentification can be devastating, for both the wrongfully convicted individual and for the broader criminal justice system. False identifications can lead to wrongful convictions, which in turn result in innocent people spending years, even decades, in prison. This not only damages the lives of the wrongfully convicted but also undermines public trust in the justice system.
Additionally, when a wrongful conviction occurs, the true perpetrator remains free, potentially posing a continued threat to public safety. In cases where the wrong person is convicted, the real criminal may evade justice, allowing them to commit more crimes. This cycle of injustice further harms victims, witnesses, and the broader community.
High-Profile Cases of Eyewitness Misidentification
Several high-profile cases highlight the devastating effects of eyewitness misidentification. One of the most famous examples is that of Ronald Cotton, who was wrongfully convicted of rape and burglary in North Carolina in the 1980’s. The victim identified Cotton in a police lineup, and his conviction was based largely on this testimony. However, DNA evidence later proved that Cotton was innocent and that another man, Bobby Poole, was the actual perpetrator. Cotton spent more than 10 years in prison before being exonerated, and the case became a pivotal example of how eyewitness misidentification can lead to devastating consequences.
In other cases, such as the Central Park Five, five teenagers were wrongfully convicted of a brutal assault and rape in New York city based largely on coerced confessions and misidentifications. After serving years in prison, the five individuals were exonerated when the true perpetrator came forward, admitting to the crime. The case sparked widespread debates about the fairness of the criminal justice system and the dangers of relying on eyewitness testimony.
How to Fix Eyewitness Misidentification
Given the severe consequences of eyewitness misidentifications, various measures can be implemented to reduce its occurrence and improve the accuracy of identifications. Measures which could be taken to reduce misidentification include:
1. Double-Blind Lineups
One of the most effective ways to reduce suggestiveness in identification procedures is to use double-blind lineups, where the officer conducting the lineup does not know who the suspect is. This prevents unintentional cues or biases from influencing the witness’s decision. In a double-blind lineup, neither the witness nor the officer has prior knowledge of the suspect’s identity, ensuring that the procedure is neutral.
2. Improved Lineup Construction
Lineups should be constructed so that all individuals in the lineup resemble the description of the perpetrator as closely as possible. The suspect should not stand out in any way, and the lineup should include people who fit the general characteristics of the perpetrator. This minimizes the chances of the witness choosing someone simply because they appear to be the only plausible option.
3. Employing Cautionary Instructions
Witnesses should be informed that the perpetrator may not be present in the lineup or photo array, which reduces the pressure to make an identification. This practice helps prevent witnesses from feeling compelled to pick someone, even if they are unsure.
4. Limit the Use of Leading Questions
During the questioning process, law enforcement officials should avoid leading questions or suggesting that a specific person is the perpetrator. Instead, they should allow witnesses to provide their own descriptions and avoid framing questions in a way that could bias the identification process.
5. Expert Testimony in Eyewitness Memory
In cases where eyewitness testimony is a central aspect of the trial, expert testimony on the fallibility of eyewitness memory should be allowed. Educating juries about the limitations and potential flaws in eyewitness identification can help them critically assess the evidence and avoid placing undue weight on potentially unreliable testimony.
My Final Thoughts
Eyewitness misidentification is a serious issue that undermines the criminal justice system’s ability to deliver fair and accurate verdicts. Factors such as stress, trauma, cross-racial identification, and suggestive procedures contribute to the problem. High-profile cases of wrongful convictions demonstrate the far reaching consequences of misidentification, both for the wrongfully convicted and for the true perpetrators who remain free. However, by implementing reforms such as double-blind lineups, improved lineup construction, and expert testimony, the criminal justice system can significantly reduce the risk of misidentification and ensure that justice is served.
If you, or someone you know, will be proceeding to trial, challenging a criminal sentence, pursuing post-conviction relief, or litigating a Civil Rights Section 1983 lawsuit, our books are crucial resources in the pursuit of justice. Purchase your copy today, or on behalf of someone incarcerated.