User:Manuela.Irarraz/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/ Seminar Group 8/GroupEvidence

Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

Witness in stabbing incident, Brisbane - 1942

Eyewitness testimony in legal terms refers to an account provided by people who have witnessed first-hand the event under trial. (1) In a large share of criminal cases where reliable evidence may be scarce, courts often turn to eyewitness statements to secure their final conviction. However, despite its being the main form of evidence in over 20% of cases (2), reports indicate that they can be severely inaccurate and represent one of the least reliable forms of evidence used in investigations, responsible for over 70% of false convictions (3). The misidentification of suspects undoubtedly has detrimental implications on society, through the wrongful conviction of innocent citizens and the freedom granted to dangerous perpetrators. (2)

The reliability of eyewitness testimony can be skewed by a variety of psychological factors that gravely affect an eyewitness’ ability to share their experience with complete accuracy. Even everyday bodily influences such as anxiety/stress, memory decay and poor eyesight have all been shown to influence false testimony. (2) Geoffrey Loftus, a perception and cognition psychology professor, has sought a way to present to juries the rapid degradation of people’s ability to decipher details as that person moves further away from the focused object. Psychologists conclude that such research demonstrates how eyewitness evidence can be contaminated by an individual’s visual perception and may lead to incorrect reconstructions of the crime. (4) An often heavier influence to false eyewitness testimony, which occurs after the crime has occurred, is known as “eyewitness talk”. Witnesses often discuss their recollection of events among themselves and subsequently alter their own memory based on the evidence of their fellow witnesses (2). A survey found that 86% of eyewitnesses admitted to discussing the event with other witnesses prior to their testimony (2); this is a serious and common phenomenon that often leads to false accounts where witnesses incorrectly differentiate between their own memory and information they learned after the incident (3). An individual’s observation of an event is also often affected by their cultural background and values, allowing them to reconstruct their memory wherever applicable with an inherent bias in their reconstruction. (5) Another reoccurring phenomenon is “weapon focus”, whereby eyewitnesses overly focus their attention on a weapon that is present, to the exclusion of other details present in the crime (1). These psychological factors depict how heavily succumbed the human mind is to internal and external influences, no matter how confident the eyewitness may be, and the resulting unreliability of eyewitness testimony in legal trials, despite its prevalence in today’s legal system.

There is a clear tradeoff between the relevance and reliability of eyewitness testimony in court cases and it remains a necessity for investigators of criminal trails to reconstruct facts from past events using any evidence available.

(1) https://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html (2) https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-little-we-can-trust-eyewitnesses-67663 (3) file:///C:/Users/xieti/Downloads/CustodialReviewarticle-DaraMojtahedi1.pdf (4) https://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx (5) https://www.ukessays.com/services/example-essays/criminology/relevance-and-reliability-of-eyewitness-testimony-in-court.php

DNA and it's positive effect in the field of forensic sciences and criminology

   DNA sampling has been considered by some as the biggest breakthrough in the field of forensic science since the discovery of fingerprinting.

   Indeed, since the 1986 Pitchfork case breakthrough, the use of DNA in the domain of forensic science has seen itself decuple at an exponential rate. It is through the use of DNA sampling and help of Alec Jeffreys, University of Leicester geneticist, that the double murderer and rapist Colin Pitchfork was brought to the eyes of justice and convicted; making history as the first case to be solved using DNA technology. Not only did it lead to the incarceration of the perpetrator it also cleared the name of 17 year old Richard Buckland.

   However it is important to note that in the case the DNA was not used as proof, but rather helped the authorities pull a confession out of the prime suspect.  The use of DNA as proof in the court would however become more common as the results observed were applauded by many, the late 90’s saw a quick development of DNA sampling in the field of forensic science and many forensic scientist were formed in order to be able to make use of it.

   This fast development meant that DNA testing was becoming normalized in the court. This behavior however, wasn’t and still isn’t today and automatism in court, due to potential skepticism and the small, yet existing margin for human error, as it is a complex operation. This aversion by some to using DNA led to the creation of operations such as the Innocence Project (USA), whose goal was to use DNA testing in a positive manner. Their main focus however is not convicting criminals, but rather clearing the name of those wrongfully accused. To this date it has helped 326 people, in 70% of these cases the accusation was made in relation to eyewitness misidentification, these numbers however only represent a small part of a bigger problem that has been plaguing nations alike.  According to the Innocence Project there are tens of thousands of cases since 1989 in the USA in which suspects were cleared of charges thanks to DNA sampling. Not only has this project saved suspects from time spent in jail but also from the repercussions that come with the experience (financial difficulties, mental health problems and such).

    Where it can be used to individually identify criminals and help the wrongfully accused, DNA has also changed the face of forensic science on an other level, as violent crimes (such as rape and murder) are most often committed by multiple time offenders, leading to the creation of databases and logs which can then be used in future investigations. Without DNA, this useful tool couldn’t have come to existence and would considerably slow down efforts of justice.

Friday, November 30, 2018 1:24 AM

Mishandling of Forensic Evidence

DNA forensics presented in court, are highly perceived as an irrefutable and reliable piece of evidence, which can overturn a defendant's adjudication. Any biological evidence collected at crime scenes can be analyzed through DNA testing. Its validity and accuracy has made this particular type of scientific evidence more unassailable, and the massive exposure of DNA forensics in criminology and law enforcement, has made it authoritative and relied upon. Although there has been many faulty court cases that have been exonerated by DNA testing, at the same time, the opposite can happen. Major reviews of DNA evidence presented in past trials, have proved faulty forensic analysis. DNA evidence in court, also has its own pitfalls which differ from eyewitness testimonies. Erroneous DNA analysis have been reported, due to the oversight of lab performances in dealing with DNA forensics, which have caused many wrongful convictions. In 2013, the New York medical examiner's office reviewed more than 800 rape cases which may have had crime investigators who have been introduced to reports with mishandled DNA evidence. Mishandling of DNA evidence include swapping items within labs, cross-contamination, and other lab protocols which may have been ignored.

Interpretation of Forensics

A single DNA sample from a crime scene can include a mix of many potential suspects, which creates a group of unknown peaks, which makes it very difficult for the analysis to distinguish them. One person's DNA can be found from a place they have never visited. Hindrance of the proper assessment of DNA, reveals the subjectivity of DNA evidence. In 2013, an American geneticist, Michael Coble of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, carried out a scenario testing which asked 108 laboratories to draw conclusions if a particular DNA sample was part of the mix of DNA forensics found on a ski mask from a crime scene. The result was that 73 laboratories said that the DNA sample was part of the mix found from the mask, which in fact, was wrong. These results clearly suggest that forensic evidence is hugely afflicted by the analysists' discretion.

What this means

A research report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, published by the National Research Council in 2009 and submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, states that true value of forensics lie on the quality of the biological evidence collected at crime scenes, and not neccesarily solidly on scientific studies. Thus, the value of evidence depend on expert interpretation. We are not provided with scientific data, but instead, presented with conclusions drawn from several possibilities derived by forensic science. It is significant and worthy for us to think about these possible flaws of forensic evience, and question professional consensus when we pursue decision-making in court. The greatest dilemma that lies within the court is the significant reliance on DNA evidence, but moreover, whether it has any 'scientific" value.

“Just because it’s DNA doesn’t mean it’s good science,”.  -American biologist and the founder of the Idaho Innocence Project, Greg Hampikian

DNA in forensic science and it's role in exonerating the wrongly accused

-      Quick development since the late 90’s of DNA sample testing in the field of forensic science has shed light on erroneous conviction (often time due to eye witnesses testimonies), something that in the past was often looked over.

-      A few cases were although proving innocence the jury was harder to convince (sentenced for 99 years – took him 10 years to get out of prison/be pardoned by the state).

-      Today it has become more normalized to accept DNA testings as valid evidence, and it has proved itself especially useful in the exoneration of prisoners post conviction.

-      Although this procedure is more commonly accepted, it has not become an automatism. This has lead to the creation of societies?? Such at the Innocence Project which has been using DNA test to prove innocent, people wrongfully convicted.

-      It has helped to this date  362 people – 70% of cases involved eyewitness misidentification.

-      Not only those this group help innocent people it has also helped identify 158 actual assailants.

-      In the USA only it has been said that since 1989 10