The Role of Eyewitness Testimony in Criminal Investigation - Essay Example

Critically consider the use of eyewitness testimony in criminal investigation. In what way have forensic psychologists contribute to the solution of some of the issues raised about its use? The most common way for evidence to be adduced is through the testimony of a witness. But the very nature of reconstructive nature of memories means that an eyewitness’s evidence cannot always be relied upon. The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station in London following the July 20051 bombings provides an example of how eyewitnesses can easily get it wrong. On the day Jean Charles was killed he was described by eyewitnesses as suspicious, as having jumped over the ticket barrier and as wearing a bulky jacket ostensibly concealing a device. The Independent police complaints commission stated:” Jean Charles was wearing a light shirt or jacket, walked through the barrier and only ran when he saw his train approaching.”2 Eyewitness Researchers argues:” The introduction of DNA testing procedures have shed further light with evidence based on eyewitness memory. DNA analysis has been conducted on people who were convicted prior to the introduction of forensic DNA analysis in the 1990s. These tests have resulted in the exoneration of people who were actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted in the USA”3 There are many reasons why errors in eyewitness evidence can occur. Given a situation where a witness has seen a crime take place from a considerable distance and late at night is less likely to make an accurate identification of the accused than a witness who has had more favourable viewing conditions. On the other hand, the witness may have made a wrong identification because the police conducted a line-up that was biased in some way. A good illustration of the impact of situational variables on eyewitness memory is illustrated by an Australian appeal case, Dominican v Queen4. The accused was charged with attempted murder. The appeal case was based on appellant claims that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of the identification of the gunman by failing to give specific warning concerning various features of the evidence of an eyewitness in the shooting. There were a number of weaknesses in the identification evidence. At the time of the shooting, the witness claimed she did not know the appellant. Nearly nine months elapsed before she formally identified him from photographs that had been altered to show the appellant wearing a wig and a false moustache. By that time, the appellant was a definite suspect. The witness had seen him on television on a number of occasions and allegedly in the vicinity of her home. According to the conditions of witnessing in Dominican case, she saw the gunman some distance away. She was hiding behind another vehicle. He was leaning across the passenger’s seat and he was disguised. Her opportunity to observe him was fleeting. Moreover, her first observation of the gunman took place after about 30 shots had been fired in her direction, after she had seen her husband shot through the hand, and after her husband physically pushed her head down. The direction the judge gave to the jury stated:” His Honour told the jury that ‘(s)udden and unexpected acts of violence such as Mrs F described in this case, can affect people caught up in the events in different ways. The terror of the occasion can serve to impress indelibly on the minds of some people the features of any one they see involved in it. With other people the effect may be to obscure their judgment and their later recollection.” The judge’s directions were deemed inadequate, and the appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed and a retrial was ordered. It is worth pointing out that there has been criticism on identification procedures conducted by the police. In a number of occasions, the police use a show-up. A show-up is when a single photograph of a suspect is presented to the witness for identification with the option to identify the person as the accused or not. This form of identification has been described as ‘suggestive’ and biased. Memon, A(2008,p.57) states:” The witness is placed under added pressure to make an identification because they believe the police have evidence that the person in the photo is the culprit; or because they believe the show-up is the only opportunity they will have to identify the perpetrator.” In Scotland in court identifications also known as dock identifications are seen as a necessary element to establishing evidence of eyewitness identifications. In Holland v HMA5, identifies the problems associated with pretrial identification and subsequent dock identifications at the trial. The accused was charged with two counts of armed robbery and assault at a private house and at a newsagent. Eyewitness testimony was the sole form of identification evidence led at the trial. There were several witnesses. One witness(Mr L) was blind in one eye and could not see well out of the other. Two of the other witnesses(Miss G and Mr S) had identified the accused from police photographs but selected two foils from the live parade. Miss G’s Son identified the accused from the live parade but there was some dispute as to whether this was an identification or a statement that the accused resembled the robber. During the trail, the crown led no evidence about the identification parades but relied solely upon Miss G and her Son who identified the accused in the dock. No identification evidence from Mr L was led. Roberts, A & Ormerod, D(2008,P.65) argues:”….cross examination is ineffective in this respect because the trial will take place months after the events with which it is concerned and the witness’s memory of events may have deteriorated or have been distorted over this period. Obviously there is a risk with any relevant information that it will be lost as a consequence of such deterioration and this makes the fact-finding process more difficult.”6 To protect against unsafe convictions in England and Wales, trial judges have discretion to exclude cases involving disputed identification. The Turnbull guidelines, laid down in the eponymous case R v Turnbull, impose three specific obligations. First, in a trial involving disputed identification, where the prosecution case is based wholly or substantially on eyewitness identification evidence, if the judge considers the identification evidence to be of poor quality, the case must be withdrawn from the jury. Where the case is left to the jury the judge must, warn the jury of the dangers associated with identification evidence generally, and remind them of specific weakness in the evidence in the particular case. In conclusion, it can be submitted, that the forensic psychologists have done some much as outlined above in criticizing the eyewitness procedure in the investigation of crime. It should be noted that safeguards imposed at various stages of the criminal process have been achieved due to the contribution of the forensic psychologists. Bibliography Canter, D, & Zukauskiene, R(2008),Psychology, crime & law, Ashgate, Hampshire. Barlett, J.C & Memon, A(2006), Eyewitness memory in young & older adults Bingham, J.C & Bothwell, R(1983)The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications Behrman, B& Davy, S(2001)eyewitness identification in actual crimes Heydon, J.(2004)CROSS ON EVIDENCE, 7TH Australian ed, butterworths. McKenzie, I(2003)Eyewitness evidence Ormerod, D, & Birch, D(2004)The evolution of the discretionary exclusion of evidence, criminal law review,767 Reiner, R(2000)The politics of the police,3rd ed, OUP, Oxford Journals/Articles Journal of applied psychology,1986, vol.6,pp.1280-1284 Australian law reform, commission(1985)report No.26, Evidence (Interim),vol.1 Read More