Using Eyewitness Evidence in Criminal Investigations - Essay Example

CHALLENGES OF COLLECTING AND USING EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS Introduction Criminal investigation involvesthe study of facts useful in identification, location and subsequent proof of a criminal’s guilt and may include searching, questioning, interrogating and collection of evidence as well as preserving it among other procedures. In the modern days, criminal investigations involve forensic science techniques (Hsieh, 2014). Historically, it was practiced with both the accused and the criminal collecting and submitting evidences they would have. This was a right of both. To date, the government is greatly involved through the police force in gathering evidence. However, there are also private investigators that have firms which involve in the same on hire. Eye witness evidence is the account of a bystander that they give inside a courtroom. The person therefore describes what they observed taking place in the course of a given occurrence under investigation (Hsieh, 2014). This is normally used to give evidence of what took place from the point of view of the witness and is thus reliant on memory recall. They have therefore played an important role in unearthing the truth about certain crimes. The evidences provided by these people have proven critical to identification, charging and subsequent conviction of suspected criminals. For that reason, it is therefore essential for the evidence of an eye witness to be not only accurate but very reliable. However, eye witness evidence are not always perfect (Birch, 1989). Forensics can now establish the claim held by psychologists that an individual’s perception can be unreliable; influenced; altered and partial. Thus, this essay will look at the challenges of collecting and using eye witness evidence in criminal investigations (Birch, 1989). Reliability of eye witness evidence The challenges of eye witness evidence reliability can be viewed as twofold: before the trial stage, minimizing conditions that corrupt accounts of the eyewitness and, during the trial stage, where the jury gets the information it requires for critical assessment of the evidence. In each of these situations are variables crucial in determining the validity of the eye witnesses’ account: System variables (can be controlled by the criminal-justice) and estimator variables (cannot be controlled by justice system) (Wells, 2003). i. System variables These can be controlled by the criminal justice system. The major system variables include physical or photographic line up. It has been established that a witness will in approximately in one quarter of a time pick the wrong suspect. The same witness will in more than one third of the time pick out an innocent individual when the suspect is not brought in the lineup and were made aware that the suspect may be missing in the provided line up. Many misidentifications are experienced in the lineups even though there are actions that can be taken by the law enforcement to minimize such errors (Wells, 2003). The confusing difference between recognizing a person and identifying them is a challenge. Even though recognizing is a part of identifying it has been acknowledged that it poses confusion (Hsieh, 2014). This was in the case of in R v Turnbull. Therefore a Turnbull warning is crucial even in cases involving close friends recognition. In R v Bowden (1993)crim LR379,There were recognition mistakes where the witness mistook the purported offender in their recognition. The witnesses are thinking they are right in their claim to have identified the suspect since they know them yet they mistakenly recognized the suspect. These mistakes are more often made in friends and relatives who people know and as such mistake them to be the ones they saw due to mistaken recognition (Hsieh, 2014). According to (Khasin, 2009), for the litigants, if the steps are not taken it can be a course for alarm. The line ups are supposed to be either double blind or blind. This implies, the administering officer is not aware of who the suspect being looked for is. If the officer is aware, there are likely to interfere with the process thus limiting the accuracy of identification. Also to be emphasized is that the suspect may not be a part of the lineup. And as such, the witness therefore is not supposed to feel pressured or obligated to pick out a suspect. This will reduce the chance of him picking out a wrong suspect. Also in the construction of the line ups, care should be taken to ensure that the suspects don’t stand out and in the case of photos a maximum of six would serve to minimize the errors. Post identification feed backs too will influence the opinion of the witness in relation to their choice of suspect (Khasin, 2009). Show up modes of identification where the administering officer ends up producing just a single suspect for identification also limits the accuracy since the accuracy of this mode of identification diminishes very fast. Use of this after two hours from the occurrences of the event only increases the error. Section 82 (1) of PACE concerns admissibility and confessions. However, it recognizes the confessions given by the witness might turn out to be unreliable. This could be due to inducement, aggressive interrogation, or even failure to comply with the code of practice where a witness is detained (Birch, 1989). The circumstances that lead to the confessions could compromise their accuracy the psychological conditions notwithstanding. The eye witness evidences may have been obtained unfairly either due to the breach of the human rights conventions, breach of PACE code of ethics, or a bad faith by the officer. These circumstances may lead to misrepresentation of accounts of an incident in a court of law by the eye witness. Therefore pausing a challenge on their accuracy and consequently reliability. ii. Estimator variables These are those variables that can affect the ability of the witness to recall and even perceive the happenings of the incident but cannot be controlled by the justice system. Conditions such as high stress experienced by individuals affect their ability to perceive and even recall (Wells, 2003). This means a person under high stress is impaired in perceptions and ability to recall. Thus their identification can be very unreliable. In instances where weapons are used in an incident, the witness attention is more often than not distracted and is thus not able to give a clear description that can lead to a possible accurate identification of the suspect. The focus on weapons decreases a person’s identification accuracy by up to 10% (Wells, 2003). The effect of focus where the witness cannot give a clear description of the suspect negates the strength of their argument to link their chosen suspect to the crime. In the case of R v Doldur Crim.LR 2000 178 the decision of the appeal court was that parades would not be necessary if the witness purports to have only identified a feature such as clothing alone rather than other features that would distinguish the offender (Birch, 1989). Personal characteristics that define the suspect need too to be observed by the witness. This is because even simple characteristics like facial hair or even a hat on someone’s head can affect the identification (Birch, 1989). Other estimator variables also proven are a reflection of conventional wisdom and relates to how far the witness was from the suspect, how long he/ she viewed him and even the witnesses intoxication levels at that particular moment, his bias and race (Yuille, Cutshall, 1986). Memory decay is yet another that has proven inevitable. The longer the time of questioning or interrogation is form the occurrence of the event, the more likelihood of a witness failing in identification of the suspect or just being unable to recall the events of the incident accurately (Yuille, Cutshall, 1986). In the case of In R v Andrews (1993 Crim.LR 590), where three men had apparently attacked and went on to kick the victim, it was witnessed by officers. One of the attackers, Andrew, ran away but was apprehended in an aggressive confrontation after being found on a street. He however denied taking part in the attack though he was present and witnessed the incident. In this case the trial judge did not remind the jury of a likelihood of a mistaken suspect through a Turnbull warning. Andrew’s identification was not as clear as that of the other two suspects but they argued that the officer’s description fitted Andrew’s. However, the appeal of this case was to be allowed because the accuracy of the description was withdrawn citing a necessity for a Turnbull warning in this case. A similar situation that was witnessed in a court of appeal’s ruling in R v Bentley 1991 CLR 620, the appeal court made the comments that the type of identification which is recognition can never be treated as free of trouble. This was because; a lot of people had had an experience of seeing somebody on the streets thinking it is a person they knew only to realize later on they never were right. This makes an eye witness’s account in court become problematic to use. The witness in their own mind believes they are right in their testimony and can give an account of the event that happened. However, the unknown to them is that they actually were wrong in their recognition of the suspect mistaking them for someone they knew (Birch, 1989). This therefore can be used as a pointer towards the poor quality of evidence. From the above case, it is evident that there could have been an error in identification of the suspect. Andrew who was arrested might have not been a part of the attackers but as explained present in the scene. The officer might have had an impaired observation either due to the distance from the scene or other issues which could be psychological stress among others. How then can the eye witness evidence by the police officer be proven as accurate? Further complicating the case is the admittance of Andrews that he was in the scene. Could there have been another person with the same build and dress cord as Andrew’s who executed the attack? This is the reason why it is a challenge to rely on eye witness evidence. Conclusion Eye witness evidence has been used in court during litigations having a very powerful sway on the direction of the ruling. Nevertheless, the manners in which these eye witnesses identify the suspects need a lot to be checked. A more scientific approach to the situation is prudent (Geiselman, et al. 1985). The influence of the testimonies of these eye witnesses is massive in a case and as such the amount of confidence placed in it should be checked. Just because someone in their mind thinks something is true does not make it so. And just because they say something with confidence does not make it true either (Yuille, Cutshall, 1986). This essay sought to discuss the challenges of collecting and using eyewitness evidence in criminal investigations, following the discussions above and the evidence drawn from the case studies listed, it is therefore apparent that use of eye witnesses evidence in criminal investigate has very many challenges which further troubles the process. This essay has therefore found out that the use of eye witness in criminal investigation is constrained by the following challenges: the system variables which are controlled by the criminal justice system and include among others; physical lineup and photographic line up. The probability of the two procedures being accurate are influenced by system through pressure on the witness to pick out someone, obligation to identify a suspect among the provide list, show up identifications, and suggestive post identification feedbacks that can influence the mind of the witness. Next are the estimator variables that the system is unable to control but are able to affect the witness’s ability to perceive or even recall. The essay learned that psychological stress that occurs during the time of the incidence may impair an individual’s ability to recall the events occurrences. Further it can also alter their ability to perceive the incidence. Others include anxiousness which could be caused by existence of weapons in the incidence which is estimated to reduce accuracy by up to 10%. Memory decay is yet another so inevitable. Others included intoxication levels of the witness, distance from the suspect and the time difference between the event occurrence and the interrogation. Thus from the above the challenges of collecting and using eyewitness evidence in criminal investigations are myriad and pose a lot of trouble in litigation processes. Reference Birch, D. J. (1989). Evidence Provisions, The. N. Ir. Legal Q., 40, 411. Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1985). Eyewitness memory enhancement in the police interview: cognitive retrieval mnemonics versus hypnosis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 401. Hsieh, A. P. K. H. (2014). The Exclusionary Rule of Evidence: Comparative Analysis and Proposals for Reform. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. Khasin, I. (2009). Honesty is the Best Policy: A Case for the Limitation of Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices in the United States. Vand. J. Transnatl L., 42, 1029. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 277-295. Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 291. Read More