Witness identification is both the most common source of evidence in criminal cases and the highest cause of innocent convictions. Witness identification is an important source of evidence. The justice system has relied on it over the years as its primary source of evidence. Throughout its history, rules on witness identification change with for the better such as rules on hearsay evidence. The metamorphosis of witness identification persists to date; however, modern reforms call into question the essence of witness identification. Research in the area reveals high levels of inaccuracy of witness testimony. Real life examples of cases where innocent persons were convicted on the basis of witness identification corroborate research on witness identification’s inaccuracy. However, it is not all doom and gloom, as reforms into witness identification offer hope toimproving accuracy and reliability on witness testimony. Witness identification is like a new blanket for the criminal justice system, its both the source evidence of choice in criminal cases but equally holds the potential for wrongful convictions.
Relevance of Eye Witness Identification
Eyewitness testimony is the oldest form of evidence in criminal law. Throughout history, criminal cases relied on witness identification as proof of a crime or not. Witnesses were expected to tell of the evidence they heard based on the five senses. That is, what they heard, saw, touched, smelt, or tasted. The importance of witness identification as an evidentiary tool is best exemplified by the 10th commandment that states, “thou shall not give false testimony against your brother.” During the infancy years of the Mosaic religion, witness identification was so important was that it specifically offered protection against its misuse. The importance of accurate witness identification persisted through common law as witnesses were expected to be forthright and reliable sources of evidence (Kapardis, 2009). For example, hearsay evidence precluded persons who did not directly experience the evidence given by offering evidence. In a way, the rule against hearsay evidence is a modification of the 8th commandment. In essence, witness identification is a critical source of evidence in the criminal justice system with deep historical roots.
Witness identification is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is the oldest source of evidence. Its application in humanity’s early history is the result of its accessibility. Evidence of what a person perceived through their senses offered one of the most accessible sources of evidence throughout criminal laws history (Fisher,Brewer" Mitchell, 2009). Secondly, witness identification has undergone modification since its inception in an effort to improve the admissibility and reliability of witness testimony. For instance, under Sharia law, for women evidence to meet the threshold of admissibility and reliability two women must give it. It is important to appreciate the context of 3rd-century Muslim culture while considering the previous rule on witness testimony. Currently, witness identification by women, even those who practice Islam is just as valuable as men in common law courts. Thirdly, witness identification offers access to expert witnesses’ testimony. As indicated earlier, rules on witness identification have undergone changes aimed at improving the quality of evidence presented. To this end, witness identification allows for the use of expert witnesses who offer their professional opinion on diverse matters. The most common example of expert evidence is doctor’s reports. In essence, witness identification is the most popular form of evidence in criminal justice systems around the world.
Key area of Focus
Witness identification is not as reliable as once perceived. Cases of wrongful witness identification are no longer surprising due to their increased number. More and more convicts are being released for wrongful conviction as a result of witness misidentification. For example, through a Netflix documentary on Steven Avery, the public is more aware of the inaccuracies of witness identification (“The Conversation,” 2017). Avery spent 18 years in jail for rape. At the heart of the case was witness suggestibility. That is, witness identification based founded on the likelihood that the accused person is the perpetrator and not that they arethe person identified.
Witness identificationstruggles with significant challenges to itsreliability. Different aspects of the witness identificationprocess dilute the quality of evidence produced through the process. Witnesses’ mindset plays a significant role in determining the accuracy of the witness identification. For instance, traumaticexperiences more often than not dull the capabilities of a witness to offer accurate information correctly. Moreover, even within day to day interactions, the minddoes not take a keen interest on causal events such as the color of one’s clothing, color one’s eyes or even the body shape of an accused person. As such, research shows low reliability in witness identification due to a number of psychological barriers to recollection.
Additionally, the procedure of witness identification offers room for misuse. A failure to adhere to identification parades is cited as one of the key reasons for failure in witness identification. Importantly, non-compliance results in cue to the witness of who the main suspect in the lineup is. The use of photos in the event of unavailability of non-fillers further compounds the problem. Pictures are a representation of the real thing and not similar to identifying an individual. For instance, the photos used do not offer to allow the witness to different body type and height.
The reliability of witness identification is not in question. Research and practical evidence show how inaccurate witness identification is a source of evidence. Nonetheless, it is the most common form of evidence. As such, given its poor outcome both in court cases and social experiments questions arise on its reliability as a source of evidence.
Conflict in Witness Identification
Research into witness identification challenges the evidentiary status quo. Traditionally, witness identification was like Caesar's wife, beyond reproach. However, contrary evidence on the reliability of witness evidence challenges the status quo. It is alarming the level of accuracy research in witness memory presents. Shockingly, only 25% of witness testimony that is based on witness memory is accurate. The sensible reaction is that witness identification is an unreliable source of evidence not only in criminal cases but within the judicial system. However, such an assertion challenges past convictions, ongoing cases, the body of law on evidence and does not offer a viable solution.
The prospect of not having witness identification is frightening. The low accuracy levels of witness identification are a challenge to the traditionally known and accepted rules on evidence. For example, Perry v. New Hampshire the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the eyewitness testimony. In the case, the court reasserted the importance of witness identification in criminal cases. Moreover, the current set of laws on the admissibility of evidence from witnesses is based on the accuracy of witness identification. An assertion of inaccuracy of witness testimony though factually plausible does not conform to the law. Since, the judicial system as a slave to justice, the law, the justice system can only rely on the current legal status quo.
Finally, what alternatives are available? It is near impossible to assert that the repeal of witness identification as a source of evidence. In reality, witness identification is a compromise for justice. The traditional pros of witness identification still persist to date. Witnesses are the most common and accessible source of evidence. Moreover, as social species; humans are destined to interact with each other, hence, poses a greater likelihood of having evidence of a crime. Effectively, modern day research on the limitations of witness identification put the justice system between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Reform in Witness Identification
Eyewitness identification is not perfect but a vital part of the justice systems. Overwhelming evidence on the inaccuracy of witness identification precipitated a set of reforms as to how the process is to be executed. Some of the reforms include the “double-blind administration.” One of the shortfalls of an identification parade was the passive clues administrators of the parade offered witnesses. To limit the possibility of this occurring, the double-blind administration proposes both the administrating officer and the witness do not know who the suspect is (Wells, 2006). The purpose of the set is to ensure objectivity by both the witness and the administering identification officer.
Secondly, to reinforce objectivity by the witness, it is important they are not sure whether the suspect is on the identification parade or not. To achieve this, identification parades must be performed under the instructions that the accused person might not be part of the line up the witness is called to evaluate. These simple instructions go a long way in mitigation subjectivity and social pressure to make an identification. Moreover, to further reinforce the accuracy of the identification, witnesses should offer a confidence statement. Confidence statements offer evidence of their certainty of how accurate the witness feels about their choices. It is an acknowledgement of the reality that witnesses’ identification is subject to a number of social and psychological factors that influence
At time securing an identification parade with a description of the persons similar to the suspect is impossible. Police officers rely on photos of fillers and the suspect as a solution to the challenges of setting up an identification parade. The execution of the process contributes to wrongful convictions. At times, officers choose fillers according to their understanding of the suspect's looks and not those offered by the witness. As a result, the lineup includes fillers of the wrong description. Additionally, the nature of the photos taken for identification parade adopted a biased approach towards certain individuals. Reforms in how the police take photographs of suspects and the nature of the identification line up go a long way in increasing the witness accuracy.
References
Fisher, R. P., Brewer, N., " Mitchell, G. (2009). The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Legal versus cognitive explanations. R. Bull, T. Valentine, " T. Williamson (Eds.), Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing: Current developments and future directions, 121-136
Kapardis, A. (2009). Psychology and law: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
The Conversation. (2017). New research reveals how little we can trust eyewitnesses. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-little-we-can-trust-eyewitnesses-67663
Wells, G. L. (2006). Eyewitness identification: Systemic reforms. Wis. L. Rev., 615.
