Eyewitness+Identification

Return to Home

Eyewitness Identification:

Eyewitness Identification is one of the methods that police officers and investigators use in order to connect their suspects to the crime they are trying to solve. However, with recent advances in DNA testing, our justice system has overturned many of the guilty verdicts that were mainly determined by the use of this method. This is a result of human mistakes and it would be extremely difficult to perfect. The basis of this method rests solely on a person’s ability to remember what the suspect of the crime looked like and often times when identifying a suspect the witness feels distressed or compelled to make and identification at all cost, which allows mistakes to be made. This backs the data that states that over 50% of eyewitness identifications are wrong.


 * Three Main Parts of an Eyewitness Testimony:**
 * A person must have witnessed a crime
 * The witness must memorize the details of what they have seen
 * The witness must accurately recall what they have seen and heard during the time of the crime

**Example:** A witness made an identification in a “show-up” procedure from the back of a police car hundreds of feet away from the suspect in a poorly lit parking lot in the middle of the night.
 * Scientific Problems with Eyewitness Testimony:**
 * The visibility conditions may be poor where the crime takes place (low light, bad weather conditions such as rain, etc.)
 * Even when placed in ideal visibility conditions, most people are poor at facial identification
 * Some of the procedures used by police officers and investigators may be administered in a biased manner

When a person becomes a witness of the crime, police officers and investigators used several different techniques to obtain specific information from the witness. Most commonly they use procedures such as Lineups and Photo-identifications, which causes the witness to decide whether or not the investigators and officers have the right suspect. However, there are several questionable actions that administers make during these procedures.


 * Common Mistakes within Procedures:**
 * The witness who is undergoing the procedure often times is not aware of the possibility that the culprit is not within either the lineup or photo array (the witness feels as if the have to make an identification)
 * The “fillers” or “distracters” placed within the procedures don’t often fit the profile that was initially giving by the witness (Makes the suspect more obvious to the witness)
 * The officer or investigator administering the procedure is aware of who the suspect is (Possibility of the administer hinting of who the suspect is which causes the witness to choose the suspect rather than the actual culprit)
 * Example:** A witness in a rape case was shown a photo array where only one photo of the person police suspected was the perpetrator was marked with an “R.”

Eyewitness Identification has many flaws that cause many innocent to be put in jail and there is no possible way to perfect this method. There are ways to improve this method however and they are the opposite of what some of the common mistakes made by the administrators.

[] [] []
 * For More Information:**

Lorenzo Johnson:

Lorenzo Johnson was convicted of murder and criminal conspiracy on March 17, 1997 when Taraja Williams was found dead in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In his convicting case, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had only one witness who had originally lied to the police about her knowledge of the crime stating that she knew nothing about what had happened. After a while of questioning the same witness claimed to have lied when she gave her initial statement was the Commonwealth’s main witness.


 * Witnesses:**
 * Original witness who claims to have lied about her initial statement and in turn states how see remembered seeing Mr. Johnson in an argument that involved Mr. Williams, another man, and himself and soon after the three left the bar
 * The owner of the bar stated that Mr. Johnson had not participated in an argument nor was he even at the bar
 * The bouncer of the bar stated that he had not seen Mr. Johnson in the bar that night

The jury of this case found Mr. Johnson guilty of murder and criminal conspiracy even though the prosecution had no evidence that directly linked Mr. Johnson to the crime. Mr. Johnson’s lawyers applied for a direct appeal, but it was denied. Regardless, one Supreme Court Judge stated that he believed that the Commonwealth had no direct evidence or any evidence that could have been inferred that linked Mr. Johnson to the death of Taraja Williams.

Mr. Johnson could possibly be innocent of this crime because the Commonwealth had no direct evidence and the entire conviction was based upon a statement made by an eyewitness who originally lied to the police. Who’s to say that they aren’t lying again?