A flaw in the system: The errors in eye-witness testimony

A flaw in the system: The errors in eyewitness testimony

Damyana Raykova

When asked to rate the accuracy of our own memories, the majority of us are confident that what we remember is a true picture of what happened. Contrary to popular belief, we are actually not good at retrieving accurate details from memory and memory distortions are much more common than we think.

This misplaced trust in memory usually doesn’t pose a problem in life, but can prove hugely important in court cases, where eyewitness testimony can swing a jury and determine a defendant’s future. Eyewitness testimony is often given substantial consideration when coming to a verdict because we all believe that our memories are accurate. This means that both witnesses and juries have a lot of confidence in these accounts. But when testimony is conflicting, a case may depend on almost arbitrary factors such as how believable each witness seems.

‘the eyewitness testimony of just one man was enough for a false conviction’

Studies dating back to as early as the 1930s indicate that memory retrieval is an easily distorted process. Circumstance, cultural norms, and prior beliefs can drastically change what individuals think they’ve seen. Even once a memory is formed it can be distorted during retrieval, with the way a question is worded having an influence on what is remembered.

Marita Kimo

Elizabeth Loftus was the pioneer of this work and her research in the 70s showed the susceptibility of memory to distortion. Her most famous experiment involved asking individuals how fast vehicles in a car crash video were going when they “hit” or “crashed” into each other. The changing of just one word was able to produce a difference in the speed participants reported cars were going. Whilst this is a harmless example, it is worrying that individuals’ own memories could be distorted by the questions asked during a police interview or at trial.

‘memory retrieval is an easily distorted process’

Memories, instead of being an exact recording of events, are reconstructed every time we remember them. This means that our current state and everything that has happened since the memory can potentially affect what we remember. When we first witness something, it is impossible to pay attention to every detail. Gaps in our memories may become filled with our best guess of what was likely to have occurred, or information about the event we are given afterwards. We may even fuse two completely different events into a single memory.

Despite the knowledge of the problems with eyewitness testimony, it is still incredibly persuasive in the judicial system. One of the many examples of overreliance on memory is the case of John Bunn, who spent 17 years in prison, convicted at only 14. Correction officers Rolando Neischer and Robert Crosson were sat in their car in Brooklyn when they were shot by two men attempting to steal the car. The encounter resulted in Neischer being shot 5 times and later dying from his wounds. After police received an anonymous tip, they apprehended Bunn and a 17-year-old co-defendant of his. The surviving officer, Crosson, identified the culprits from a line-up. Robert was the only eyewitness called in. His statement and eyewitness account were deemed as sufficient evidence for a trial. It lasted just a day and resulted in nearly two decades in prison for Bunn. Even after he was released on parole, it took another 10 years for a new trial to be held and for him to be exonerated by a judge.

The eyewitness testimony of just one man was enough for a conviction that wasn’t overturned for almost thirty years. Now 41 and a free man, Bunn has spent nearly 2/3 of his life fighting to clear his name because of the misconceptions held about the accuracy of memory.

There is no doubt that changes need to be made to the weight given to eyewitness testimony. One of the first and most important steps would be to spread awareness and educate people on issues regarding the fallibility of human memory. There’s still a long way to go, but decreasing the blind trust we put in our memory will start us on a path towards a fairer, less biased judicial system.