How reliable is the witness identification program? What are the various methods to safeguard against wrongful witness identification?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.Scientists have focused more attention on assessing the effects of various identification procedures than on trial processes that could reduce the rates of wrongful convictions. But some studies examine ways to counter jurors' overreliance on eyewitness identification.One possibility is to inform jurors about whether investigators followed DOJ guidelines for conducting lineups. This would allow jurors to gauge whether the procedures and outcome warrant their trust. A mock jury study tested this idea. Some jurors were informed that detectives violated DOJ guidelines and others were not so informed. Those who learned about guideline violations thought the prosecution's case was weaker and were less likely to convict the defendant, suggesting that failure to adhere to DOJ guidelines could discredit the prosecution.Until the guidelines are consistently applied or reforms adopted more broadly, other mechanisms should be available to educate jurors and judges about the problems inherent in eyewitness reports. We discuss three ways to do this. One proposal limits the testimony of eyewitnesses in particular ways. Another remedy allows psychologists who are knowledgeable about the relevant research on perception and memory to testify as expert witnesses on eyewitness reliability. Finally, judges could instruct juries about the potential weaknesses of eyewitness identifications and suggest how to interpret this testimony.Suppose that an eyewitness to a convenience store robbery made a tentative identification of a suspect from a lineup, and after being shown a second lineup in which the suspect was the only person repeated, made a more confident identification. A judge could rule that the eyewitness can testify about the initial, tentative identification, but not about the second identification. A prosecutor faced with the exclusion of powerful testimony is likely to pressure the police to use less suggestive procedures in the future.In all but two states, experts may testify about research on eyewitness identification; typically, they do on behalf of the defendant. Their testimony focuses on factors that influence eyewitness accuracy. Such testimony might indicate that (1) extreme stress tends to inhibit encoding, (2) feedback from a lineup administrator can increase an eyewitness's confidence, and (3) differences in the way lineups are constructed and presented to witnesses affect eyewitness accuracy. Note that the expert witness does not tell the jury what to believe about a particular eyewitness or whether the eyewitness is accurate. Rather, the expert's task is to provide the jury with a scientifically based frame of reference within which to evaluate the eyewitness's evidence