Running head: EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

Eyewitness Testimonies in North America: The Contributing Factors of Wrongful
Convictions

Kyle D’Antonio
Bachelors of Law Enforcement Studies
LAWS-4003 Research Project
Justice Institute of British Columbia
Gregory Keenan
Rod Gehl
2019-02-08

1

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

2

Abstract
The validity of eyewitness evidence is a controversial and problematic issue. This study
focused on examining research that has been previous conducted and places it in a North
American context. This study specifically focused on the credibility of eyewitness
testimony and examined the relationship between inaccurate eyewitness testimony and
wrongful conviction. A review of the existing literature was conducted and as a result
four common themes were identified. The themes that were seen as the most problematic
areas included memory, perception and bias, juror knowledge, and police practice. The
information gathered was critically analyzed to ensure that it was both credible and
relatable to the central topic of this paper. Once the literature was verified, the chosen
themes were critically examined to gain a better understanding of eyewitness testimony
and their impact on the totality of a criminal trial. This study will provide information to
courts within North America that will help them better understand the credibility of
eyewitness testimonies as well as put forward more accurate means of evidence. This
research will also illustrate the need for judicial systems to take action in reforming their
justice system to increase the credibility of eyewitness testimony and promote a high
level of integrity within their court systems.
Keywords: eyewitness testimony, credibility, wrongful conviction, memory, juror
knowledge, police procedure, perception and bias

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

3

Table of Contents
Abstract………………………….………………………………………………………...2
Background / Introduction……….………………………………………………………..4
Project Rationale…….…………………………………………………………………….5
Literature Review……….…………………………………………………………………6
Memory…………….……….……………………………………………………..7
Perception and Bias….…….….…………...………..…………………………….8
Police Procedures.….....……….…….…...…………………….…………………9
Juror Knowledge….………..………..………………………...…………………11
Research Design and Methodology……………………………………………………...12
Data Collection…………………………………………………………………..13
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………….14
Discussion and Findings…………………………………………………………………14
Use of Eyewitness Testimony…………………………………………………….15
Implication of Findings…………………………………………………………..16
Canadian Approach……………………………………………………………...17
Recommendations….…………………………....………………………………………19
Conclusion…………….…………………………………………………………………21
References…….....………………………………………………………………………23

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

4

Background
According to the Innocence Project, of their first 225 exonerations of wrongfully
convicted individuals in the United States, 77% were based on mistaken or inaccurate
eyewitness testimonies (Shermer, Rose, & Hoffman, 2011). In light of these findings, it is
important that research is conducted to better understand eyewitness credibility and the
root causes of wrongful convictions. There are many different aspects behind inaccurate
eyewitness testimonies, yet they all have a detrimental impact on all parties involved.
With the assistance of scientific research, the validity of eyewitness evidence has finally
been questioned. This research has discovered great flaws in eyewitness testimony by
bringing awareness to the implications of human error and their ability to have a
catastrophic impact on the outcome of a case.
The mounting evidence behind the reliability issues with eyewitness testimonies
provide a strong basis as to why this issue needs to be researched. The criminal justice
system in North America places a large degree of trust and credibility in eyewitness
testimonies (Leinfelt, 2004). The issue however is their expectation that witnesses
provide accurate information that illustrates a precise representation of events. It has been
shown through scientific research that a variety of factors can have an effect on the
credibility of eyewitness evidence. More specifically, it has been argued that a witness’s
memory, their perceptions and biases, the knowledge of the jury, and the practices of law
enforcement agencies, all have the ability to influence the accuracy of an eyewitness
testimony. This study will present research into the credibility of eyewitness evidence to
better understand the correlation between inaccurate eyewitness testimony and wrongful
conviction. Further decision will include a summary of recommendations as well as a

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

5

discussion section that provides an in-depth analysis of the findings.
Project Rationale
Eyewitness testimonies are an essential tool in our criminal court system to arrest
and convict those guilty of an offence. The use of eyewitness testimonies in North
America is relatively high due to the lack of hard evidence available to law enforcement
agencies (Shermer, et al., 2011). Despite their frequent level of use, an overwhelming
amount of wrongful convictions are the result of eyewitness misidentification (Shermer,
et al., 2011). According to the Innocent Project, 75% of individuals that are exonerated
are the victims of eyewitness misidentification. Despite the high number of innocent
people being wrongfully convicted, eyewitness identification remains amongst the most
commonly used and compelling evidence used in the prosecution of criminal defendants
(Shermer, et al., 2011). Given this information, it is important to create awareness to the
issue by informing criminal law practitioners. It is also vital that the individuals in charge
of our court systems understand the risk of eyewitness identification and have an accurate
representation of its credibility.
The objective of this paper is to increase the overall awareness among criminal
law practitioners, regarding the issues relating to the use of eyewitness evidence. With an
understanding of human error and its relationship with misidentification, the credibility of
eyewitness evidence becomes clear. The scope of this research will focus on the
credibility of eyewitness testimonies and their relationship to wrongful convictions. More
specifically, this research will take a scientific approach to examine how and why
eyewitness testimonies are not always accurate. This will include an examination into

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

6

memory, the role of jurors and judges, issues with police procedure, as well as perception
and bias.
Literature Search
Themes
After reviewing the selected articles, four main themes were identified in the
literature. The issues that connected these articles were flaws with the accuracy of
eyewitness testimonies and the individual factors that influence their overall credibility.
The first theme that was identified was memory. There was a strong indication from the
majority of the research that memory may have the most significant impact on the
outcome and validity of eyewitness evidence.
The second theme that emerged was perception and bias. Several academics
including Shermer, Rose and Hoffman (2011) and Beety (2012) have discussed the
ability for witnesses’ visual perceptions to become tainted by a number of factors. These
factors often include cultural lenses, personal beliefs, and upbringing.
The third theme was juror knowledge and their inability to understand the
credibility behind eyewitness testimonies. One of the main issues with eyewitness
evidence is that jurors and judges do not always understand the true science behind its
accuracy and how memory works (Blair, 2018).
The final theme that emerged was police tactics and the ability for law
enforcement to distort a witness’s memory. These issues involved post-identification
feedback from police investigators, repeated identification lineups, and confession based
evidence. These issues are an imminent threat to defendants because they allow police
officers to instill confidence in witnesses on information that may not even be accurate.

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

7

Memory
There has been a considerable amount of research into memory and its correlation
to the credibility of eyewitness testimony. While a variety of issues have been identified,
time delay, stress, and human factors such as age and gender seem to be the most
prominent. Events of crime can often occur in just a matter of seconds, making it difficult
for the human brain to encode. When you pair this lack of time with other factors such as
low lighting, loud noises or the presence of a weapon, it can become even more onerous
for the witness. Valentine, Pickering, and Darling (2003) found that 36% of crimes
committed in London from January to September 2000 involved eyewitnesses who
viewed the perpetrator for less than one minute. Fradella (2006) explains, “as a rule, the
longer the time period between acquisition, retention, and retrieval, the more difficulty
we have retrieving the memory” (p. 10). This suggests that a witness may not always be
accurate, depending on their exposure to the event and their brains ability to encode the
information correctly.
While our brains have the ability to recall past experiences, research has shown
that eyewitnesses may have difficulty in recalling details about events involving violence
(Scrivner & Safer, 1988). In 1982, Loftus and Burns compared two groups of subjects to
identify whether memory encoding is disrupted when acts of violence are viewed. Loftus
and Burns compared the recall function of subjects who viewed a film of a bank robbery
that involved a young boy being shot in the face. The control group viewed the robbery
but was not shown the shooting. The results found that those who viewed the violent
ending were much less likely to remember information regarding the film. Loftus and

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

8

Burns argued that witnessing violence might have an impact on ones ability to encode
information (Scrivner & Safer, 1988).
Given this information, it becomes easy to understand how malleable memory
truly is and how outside factors can influence its level of accuracy. Furthermore,
individuals encode information differently based on a variety of factors. These factors
include an individual’s perception of events and any preconceived biases they may have.
This suggests that memory is far from reliable as it may not depict the actual events that
took place.
Perception and Bias
Interpretations, evaluations, and judgments of an individual are usually dependent
on the social or racial group to which an individual belongs (Lindholm & Christianson,
1998). While these perceptions and biases may have implications on an individual’s
personal life, they are even more serious within the judicial process (Lindholm &
Christianson, 1998). According to the Innocence Project (2019), black men living in the
United States receive the majority of eyewitness-influenced convictions. Further research
into cross-race identification bias suggests that particular races may be more vulnerable
to eyewitness misidentification.
“The cross-race effect (CRE) is the tendency to have better recognition accuracy
for same-race than for other-race faces due to differential encoding strategies”
(McDonnell, Bornstein, Laub, Mills, & Dodds, 2014, p. 478). The cross-race effect is a
well-documented phenomenon that suggests that individuals are better at recognizing
members within their own racial group. For witnesses to correctly identify individuals of
other races, they must encode information differently than they would with their own race

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

9

(McDonnell et al., 2014). To do this, individuals must focus on the characteristics of a
person and distinguish a difference between them and other members of that racial group.
Given that many eyewitness identifications are cross-racial, it is not hard to understand
why those of minority are at a higher risk of misidentification. However, courts must be
aware of these issues to ensure that individuals accused of crime do not become subject
to unethical court proceedings.
Police Procedures
A woman who was recently sexually assaulted in a park is looking through a
variety of photos that she has been given at her local police station. The officer asks the
woman if anyone in the photos resembles the man that assaulted her. The woman takes
another look through the photos but says nothing. The administrator then asks the woman
“How about number two, does he look familiar to you?” The woman looks at the photo
and says that the eyes and nose of the person in photo two remind her of the attacker. She
eventually identifies the person in the second photograph as the person who assaulted
her; she has now identified a suspect. The question however, is if the officer influenced
her decision in the identification. If the administrator had known that the individual in the
second photo was the suspect, could that information have caused him to ask the followup question that reinforced the witness’s attention to the second photo? Is it then possible
to assume that police officers have the power to influence the decision process of
witnesses?
Recent research suggests that a lineup administrator’s knowledge of a suspect’s
identity may influence the witness and persuade them to choose the suspect (Zimmerman,
Chorn, Rhead, Evelo, & Kovera, 2017). This potential influence is a serious problem as it

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

10

can result in an innocent person being labeled as the perpetrator. Once a witness of a
crime identifies an individual as the offender, the suspect is usually arrested and it
becomes their responsibility to defend their innocence in a court of law.
When a police officer confirms a witness’s choice towards a suspect or aids in the
decision, the overall confidence of the witness in their choice increases (Shermer et al.,
2011). This can be problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, when a witness becomes
confident in the identification of a suspect, their mind tends to reconstruct the events that
took place. This could lead to a witness now seeing the crime being carried out by the
individual they previously chose. This creates a new recollection of events that may not
be accurate. Secondly, when a jury observes an overly confident witness, they begin to
assume that the witness must be telling the truth. This level of confidence tells the jury
that the witness is certain in their identification, which ultimately leads to the jury
believing it too (Shermer et al., 2011). This information begs the question of whether or
not photo line up administrators should have knowledge in the identity of the perpetrator.
A study conducted by Shapiro in 2006, examined the effects of question format
on the accuracy and quantity of testimony. The study assessed the memory of forty
college students by showing them a videotaped theft. The students were then assessed
through open-ended or multiple-choice questionnaires. The results found a high accuracy
for central information elicited with an open-ended questionnaire and for peripheral
information elicited with a multiple-choice questionnaire. Quantity was found to be
higher for central than for peripheral features and was higher with multiple-choice than
open ended. Other research findings have typically indicated that overall recall is more
accurate with open-ended, unbiased questions as opposed to closed-ended questions

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

11

(Shapiro, 2006). Shapiro argues that closed-ended questions impact witness’ cognitive
sets by limiting their range of responses to one of the given choices in multiple-choice
questions or by restraining the answer to yes/no responses in correct/incorrect leading
questions (as cited in Lipton, 1977). Given this information, police should consider using
open-ended questions to avoid limiting the feedback they receive from witnesses.
Juror Knowledge
In 1984, Kirk Bloodsworth, a former marine, was the first person to be sentenced
to death and then exonerated. At the age of twenty-two, Bloodsworth was arrested after
five witnesses testified that they had seen him with a nine-year-old girl who was later
found dead in a wooded area. While only three of these witnesses were able to identify
Bloodsworth in a line up and there was no physical evidence, two different Maryland
juries and one judge sentenced him to death. It was not until Bloodsworth’s DNA was
tested in 1992, that he was found to be innocent and later released (Innocence Project,
2019).
In criminal cases, decisions such as guilt and innocence lay on the responsibility
of jurors. These jurors usually have little knowledge regarding how memory works and
how particular factors affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (Blair, 2013). When it
comes to jurors, there is almost nothing more persuasive than hearing an eyewitness
testify that he or she saw the defendant commit a crime (Shermer et al., 2011). As a
result, jurors tend to give more weight to eyewitnesses testimonies than any other form of
evidence (Blair, 2013). This can become problematic to the outcome of a trial by leading
jurors to believe in information that is not always accurate.
Research shows that jurors and even judges lack the knowledge necessary in

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

12

evaluating the different factors that impact the credibility of eyewitness evidence (Blair,
2013). As a result, there has been much debate about whether or not jurors require expert
testimony or specialized jury instruction to understand this information (Simmonsen,
2011). Although it may come as a surprise, a large number of people, including jurors,
tend to believe that human memory works like a tape recorder or video camera (Blair,
2013). Memory, however, is far more complex than the average person may believe. It is
because of this that researchers believe jurors require experts to inform them of flaws in
eyewitness evidence such as memory.
Recent studies have examined the idea of facial trustworthiness and its impact on
the decision making of others. This research found that based on facial appearance,
individuals tend to make assumptions about a person’s character prior to any interaction
(Korva, Porter, O’Connor, Shaw, & Brinke, 2013). These character traits included
trustworthiness, dominance, kindness, and warmth. Korva et al. (2013) argues that these
evaluations of character play a crucial part in subsequent decisions about others. This
information is troublesome, as it suggests jurors may be influenced solely by a defendants
appearance.
Research Design and Methodology
This research paper used a qualitative research approach to explore and help
understand the meaning of the problem being studied. Qualitative research allowed for
the ability to test the theory that eyewitness testimonies are not always accurate and that
they play a significant role in wrongful convictions. Due to the nature of the study, a
qualitative approach permitted for the ability to group common themes and interpret the
meaning of the information. A qualitative approach also aided in understanding how

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

13

particular factors such as memory and juror knowledge could contribute to wrongful
conviction. Further advantages to using this method included the ability to use research
that was based on human experiences and observations and opportunity to express
individual creativity.
Data Collection
The literature that was chosen for this research paper was found by conducting a
thorough search of the Justice Institute of British Columbia’s (JIBC) online library
database. In order to keep the information relevant to the topic, primary and secondary
key terms were used. The primary term included the area of study and can also be
referred to as the subject term. The two primary terms that were used in the search were
‘Eyewitness Testimony’ and or ‘Eyewitness Evidence’. This helped ensure that the
information was relevant and that all articles would be related specifically to eyewitness
testimony or evidence. The secondary terms were used to help narrow the study into
specific areas that would later help answer the research question. The secondary terms
included: ‘credibility’, ‘accuracy’, ‘validity’, ‘wrongful convictions’, ‘misidentification’,
and ‘memory’. It was intended that by using these keywords, the literature retrieved
would provide reasoning behind wrongful convictions and the factors that affect
credibility.
The initial search through the JIBC’s library system obtained approximately two
thousand articles. Based on the high volume of articles retrieved, the search was refined
by limiting the results to peer reviewed scholarly articles, articles that included full text,
and articles published between the year 1999 to present. The searches then became even

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

14

more specific by using secondary terms that allowed the researcher to categorize the
literature into different folders based on common themes.
Data Analysis
For the purpose of this research, a literature review was conducted where 18
articles were critically analyzed. The examination of these articles presented four
reoccurring themes as possible contributing factors for wrongful convictions. While the
majority of the research was based within a legal context, articles relating to the field of
psychology were also used to provide a scientific point of view. Through the analysis of
these 18 articles, issues with eyewitness credibility were discovered along with both
recommendations and limitations. While the literature did not say whether or not the
chosen themes contribute directly to wrongful conviction, an interpretation of the
information suggests it does.
Discussion and Findings
The focus of this research was to better understand the credibility of eyewitness
testimony and identify the contributing factors for wrongful convictions. After a careful
analysis and interpretation of information, there are a number of contributing factors that
can contribute to eyewitness misidentification and inaccurate eyewitness testimony. The
following section of this paper will attempt to synthesize these themes as well as reflect,
differ, and extend current knowledge within the area of study. This section will also
explore the approaches that organizations are currently implementing to decrease
wrongful convictions and increase the credibility of eyewitness testimony. The findings
presented throughout this paper suggest that memory, police procedure, juror knowledge
as well as perception and bias are among the most influential factors for inaccurate

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

15

eyewitness testimony. These findings also indicate that reliance on eyewitness evidence
can be both dangerous and onerous.
Use of Eyewitness Testimony
The results of this research suggest that the issue of eyewitness credibility is
prevalent within courts across North America. In the United States alone, the Innocence
Project found that approximately 75 percent of their first 325 exonerations were caused
by eyewitness identification (Innocence Project, 2019). While some may argue that
eyewitness misidentification is a problem of the past, given the utilization of forensic
evidence, eyewitness testimonies still remain among the most commonly used forms of
evidence in criminal cases (Shermer et al., 2011).

Figure 1: Total number of the first 325 exonerated cases by the innocence project.
(Innocence Project, 2019)
Given the results found by the Innocence Project, it becomes a question of why
eyewitness testimonies are still one of most commonly used forms of evidence. The
answer to this question however is relatively simple. In criminal cases, there is often a
greater accessibility to eyewitness evidence as opposed to forensic or physical evidence,

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

16

such as a murder weapon. For this reason, police agencies often rely on the accounts of
eyewitnesses to convince juries that their suspect is guilty.
Implication of Findings
The findings presented in this research clearly suggest that there are certain
factors that contribute to the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies. While there are many
possible factors, memory, juror knowledge, police practice, and perception and bias, were
identified as having the most influence towards wrongful convictions. Within the theme
of memory, the results suggest that false or inaccurate memories can be created by a
variety of factors. These factors include post-encoding factors and factors that are present
during the initial witnessing of a crime (Holmes & Weaver, 2010). Post-encoding factors
include mechanisms that influence memory after the event has taken place. Examples of
post-encoding factors include time delay and misleading information. Present factors
include stress, presence of a weapon, perception, and bias.
With respect to juror knowledge, the research suggests that there is almost no
other evidence more convincing to a jury than eyewitness testimony. The issue however
is that researchers have found that jurors generally have little to no knowledge in regards
to the credibility of eyewitness evidence. This can become extremely dangerous for the
accused as research shows that the majority of wrongful conviction stem from eyewitness
misidentification. In regards to police procedures, research suggests that the actions of
police officers during the investigation process have the ability to influence the accuracy
of eyewitness testimonies. Examples of this include photo lineups and the way in which
police question witnesses of crime. The final factor that was identified was perception
and bias and how our cultural lenses and upbringing can contribute to how we view a

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

17

situation. An example of this could be a Caucasian individual who grew up in a
predominately white community where those of minority were depicted as criminals.
Having been conditioned to think this way, the individual may go on to believe that those
of colour are criminals and should not be trusted.
In the end it appears that memory, police procedure, juror knowledge and
perception and bias, hold sufficient weight in the credibility of eyewitness evidence and
the outcome of criminal trials. Given this information, the criminal justice must seek
reform within the system to ensure that those accused of crimes are provided with a fair
trial.
Canadian Context
In Canada, issues regarding the credibility of eyewitness testimony seem to be
recognized by law enforcement and those involved within the judicial process. While the
majority of the United States operates on a state-to-state basis, Canada appears to have a
more unified system. Research suggests that both judges and police officers in Canada
tend to be more educated regarding eyewitness evidence. In Canada, police officers are
provided education about eyewitness evidence during their recruitment training. During
this training they are made aware of how their actions as police officers can influence the
credibility of eyewitness evidence. Two examples of this training include general
principles for interviewing witnesses and proper procedures for constructing and
administrating photo lineups. Similar to training provided to police officers, judges and
defense lawyers in Canada also receive training in eyewitness testimony.
One of the greatest noticeable differences between Canada and the United States
is Canada’s initiative in trying to increase the credibility of eyewitness testimonies. In

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

18

Canada, the Department of Justice (2015) has provided a list of recommendations
involving eyewitness identification and testimony. The first recommendation includes
police protocols designed to enhance the reliability for interviewing. The second
recommendation involves providing effective training to investigators involved in the
interview process. The inquiry suggests that investigators be provided with certain
techniques that increase the reliability of witness statements. The third recommendation
is to prevent the contamination of witnesses through information conveyed. This
recommendation proposes that police officers should be made aware of the dangers that
come with unnecessary communication with witnesses. The fourth recommendation is
Crown education regarding interview practices. According to the inquiry, the Ministry of
the Attorney General should establish educational programming to better train Crown
counsel regarding interview techniques. The final recommendation is to improve the
overall conduct of Crown interviews. In this recommendation, the inquiry suggests that
counsel takes initiative by ensuring interviews are ethical and in the best interest of
witnesses.
Despite Canada taking initiative and addressing the issues of eyewitness
credibility, courts across North America must continue to research the credibility of
eyewitness testimony as well as the contributing factors of wrongful convictions. More
specifically, the United States must address these problems at a national level, as a stateby-state approach seems to be ineffective. Despite years of research suggesting that
eyewitness testimony is not always the most credible, the United States jurisdictions
continue to admit eyewitness evidence at trial (Blair, 2018). In the United States,
prosecutors can charge suspects even if no other evidence has been presented that

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

19

corroborates the eyewitness identification (Blair, 2018). In regards to the use of
eyewitness evidence, The United States Supreme Court stated that eyewitness evidence is
sufficient for identifying the suspect of a crime (Blair, 2018). Given the existing research
as well as the evidence presented in this study, the United States Supreme Court needs to
reevaluate their perspective towards the use of eyewitness evidence in criminal cases.
Recommendations
The results of this research show that the issue of eyewitness credibility is alive
and well in courts across North America. In order to improve the credibility of
eyewitness evidence and reduce the likelihood of wrongful convictions, government
bodies must take initiative in providing judicial reform. In addition, the implementation
of mandatory training protocols must be imposed for those who play a vital role within
the criminal justice system.
The following recommendations have been suggested by the Innocence Project
(2019) to increase the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies and reduce wrongful
convictions:
1. The “Double-blind” Procedure/Use of a Blind Administrator: A “double-blind”
lineup is one in which neither the administrator nor the eyewitness knows who the
suspect is. This prevents the administrator of the lineup from providing
inadvertent or intentional verbal or nonverbal cues to influence the eyewitness to
pick the suspect.
2. Instructions: “Instructions” are a series of statements issued by the lineup
administrator to the eyewitness that deter the eyewitness from feeling compelled
to make a selection. They also prevent the eyewitness from looking to the lineup

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

20

administrator for feedback during the identification procedure. One of the
recommended instructions includes the directive that the suspect may or may not
be present in the lineup.
3. Composing the Lineup: Suspect photographs should be selected that do not
bring unreasonable attention to the suspect. Non-suspect photographs and/or live
lineup members (fillers) should be selected based on their resemblance to the
description provided by the eyewitness – as opposed to their resemblance to the
police suspect…
4. Confidence Statements: Immediately following the lineup procedure, the
eyewitness should provide a statement, in his own words, that articulates the level
of confidence he or she has in the identification made.
5. The Lineup Procedure Should Be Documented: Ideally, the lineup procedure
should be electronically recorded. If this is impracticable, an audio or written
record should be made.
The Innocence Project has suggested these recommendations as a means of
improving the credibility of eyewitness evidence. Given the Innocence Project’s history
in dealing with wrongful convictions, these recommendations should be taken into
account to ensure that those involved in the criminal court process are given a fair trial
that is free from any malpractice.
In addition to the recommendations proposed by the Innocence Project, Canada.
Department of Justice (2015) has their own set of suggested practices and
recommendations for the police as well as prosecutors. These suggestions include the
following:

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

21

Police Officers:
i.

When possible, police officers that are independent from an investigation and
have no knowledge surrounding the details of the case, should be in charge of
administering photo lineups.

ii.

During a photo line up, the police officer should inform the witness that the
perpetrator might not be present in the lineup.

iii.

The suspect should not stand out in a way that would coerce the witness into
choosing that particular individual.

Prosecutors:
i.

Provide the witness with the opportunity to review their previously given
statements to confirm that the information they gave was accurate.

ii.

Never tell a witness that their identification of a suspect is right or wrong.

iii.

If a witness changes their original statement or recollection of events,
ensure that the defense counsel is made aware.

These recommendations provided by the Government of Canada suggest that the
issue of eyewitness credibility is of significant concern within the criminal justice system.
Therefore, adhering to these recommendations could promote a fair and just judicial
system that encourages fair trials free from unethical practice.
Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to better understand the credibility of eyewitness
testimony and identify the contributing factors of wrongful convictions. A review of the
existing literature suggested four common themes: memory, juror knowledge, police
procedures, as well as perception and bias. These themes were identified as having the

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

22

most influence on the credibility of both eyewitness testimonies and the outcome of court
decisions. While this study does not suggest that eyewitness testimony should not be used
as evidence, it does promote the need for judicial reform. Given the large degree of trust
that our justice system places on eyewitness evidence, it is crucial that more research is
conducted to explore the relationship between eyewitness evidence and wrongful
conviction.

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

23

References
Beety, V. E. (2012). What the brain saw: The case of Trayvon Martin and the need for
eyewitness identification reform. Denver University Law Review, 90(2), 331–346.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.2081921
Blair, B. (2018). Seeing is believing: Fighting eyewitness misidentification in Kansas.
Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy, 27(2), 167–185.
Retrieved from https://law.ku.edu/lawjournal
Canada. Department of Justice. (2015). FPT heads of prosecution committee report of the
working group on the prevention of miscarriage of justice. Retrieved from
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/pmj-pej/p5.html
Carlson, C. A., Young, D. F., Weatherford, D. R., Carlson, M. A., Bednarz, J. E., &
Jones, A. R. (2016). The influence of perpetrator exposure time and weapon
presence/timing on eyewitness confidence and accuracy. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 30(6), 898–910. doi:10.1002/acp.3275
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE
Eyewitness misidentification [Innocence Project]. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2019, from
https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/
Fradella, H. F. (2006). Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of
eyewitness identifications. Federal Courts Law Review, 2006(3), 2-29
Retrieved from https://www.fclr.org/

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

24

Holmes, A. E., & Weaver III, C. A. (2010). Eyewitness memory and misinformation: Are
remember/know judgments more reliable than subjective confidence? Applied
Psychology in Criminal Justice, 6(1), 47–61. Retrieved from http://www.apcj.org/
Houston, K. A., Clifford, B. R., Phillips, L. H., & Memon, A. (2013). The emotional
eyewitness: The effects of emotion on specific aspects of eyewitness recall and
recognition performance. Emotion, 13(1), 118–128. doi:10.1037/a0029220
Korva, N., Porter, S., O’Connor, B. P., Shaw, J., & Brinke, L. (2013). Dangerous
decisions: Influence of juror attitudes and defendant appearance on legal decisionmaking. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 20(3), 384–398.
doi:10.1080/13218719.2012.692931
Leinfelt, F. H. (2004). Descriptive eyewitness testimony: The influence of emotionality,
racial identification, question style, and selective perception. Criminal Justice
Review, 29(2), 317–340. doi:10.1177/073401680402900204
Lindholm, T., & Christianson, S.-Å. (1998). Intergroup biases and eyewitness
testimony. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(6), 710–723.
doi:10.1080/00224549809603256
McDonnell, G., Bornstein, B., Laub, C., Mills, M., & Dodd, M. (2014). Perceptual
processes in the cross-race effect: Evidence from eyetracking. Basic & Applied
Social Psychology, 36(6), 478–493. doi:10.1080/01973533.2014.958227
Scrivner, E., & Safer, M. A. (1988). Eyewitnesses show hypermnesia for details about a
violent event. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 371–377. doi:10.1037/00219010.73.3.371

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONIES IN NORTH AMERICA

25

Shapiro, R. L., (2006). The effects of question type and eyewitness temperament on
accuracy and quantity of recall for a simulated misdemeanor crime. Emporia State
Research Studies, 43(1), 1-7. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/
Shermer, L. O., Rose, K. C., & Hoffman, A. (2011). Perceptions and credibility:
Understanding the nuances of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 27(2), 183–203. doi:10.1177/1043986211405886
Steblay, N. K. (2009). Maintaining the reliability of eyewitness evidence: After the
lineup. Creighton Law Review, 42(4), 643–654. Retrieved from
https://www.creighton.edu/groups/lawreview/
Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness
identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 17(8), 969–993. doi:10.1002/acp.939
Zimmerman, D. M., Chorn, J. A., Rhead, L. M., Evelo, A. J., & Kovera, M. B. (2017).
Memory strength and lineup presentation moderate effects of administrator
influence on mistaken identifications. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23(4),
460-473. doi:10.1037/xap0000147