:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/can-you-trust-eyewitness-testimony-4579757-5c86960c46e0fb00015f8fc3.png)
Verywell Mind content is rigorously reviewed by a team of qualified and experienced fact checkers. Fact checkers review articles for factual accuracy, relevance, and timeliness. We rely on the most current and reputable sources, which are cited in the text and listed at the bottom of each article. Content is fact checked after it has been edited and before publication. Learn more.
Table of Contents Table of Contents Trending Videos Close this video playerEyewitness testimony is an important part of criminal investigations. However, research has shown that eyewitness testimony is not always reliable and may lead to innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not commit.
Imagine that you are convicted of a crime that you did not commit because one witness insists that they saw you do it. How is it possible for an innocent person to be found guilty? Is the eyewitness lying? Could it be a case of mistaken identity?
What if you witness a crime and the police show you a lineup of photos and ask you to identify the suspect? Would you be 100% certain that the person you think committed the crime is the real perpetrator? How would you feel if you later learned that the person you were sure was the suspect was actually innocent—and that you misidentified them?
Eyewitness testimony has been commonplace in courtrooms worldwide and throughout history, but it has a complex place in criminal investigations. Here's what you need to know about how eyewitness testimony works and why its reliability is often questioned.
In a legal sense, eyewitness testimony is an individual's firsthand account of an event that they witnessed, usually one that is suspected to be or considered a crime.
An eyewitness is typically a victim or bystander who was present at an event that is under criminal investigation. A robbery, assault, or murder are just a few examples of these events. A person's description of what they saw during the event, including any people who were present and involved in the crime, is called their testimony.
While its role is complex, eyewitness testimony is a crucial part of the criminal justice system.
If a legal team can present an eyewitness who can confidently identify a suspect and confirm that they saw a person commit a crime, jurors are compelled to believe them.
However, eyewitness testimony has a fatal flaw: it is not always accurate. If a witness provides mistaken testimony, it can lead to a wrongful conviction.
Evidence on the reliability of eyewitness testimony is mixed. While some studies suggest accounts provided by witnesses are generally reliable, the veracity of eyewitness testimony has also been called into question because there are factors that can influence the ability of a witness to accurately recall an event.
Whether someone saw a car speeding down the street minutes after an accident or they were inside a store when it was robbed, eyewitnesses are often the first source that the police turn to when they’re gathering information about a crime.
Eyewitness testimony is often the main lead in a criminal investigation. The accounts of these witnesses can lead to arrests, provide information to be used in the interrogation of suspects, and direct the creation of a lineup.
During a criminal investigation, eyewitnesses might be asked to identify a suspect in a photographic or live lineup or give a physical description of the suspect to a sketch artist creating a composite drawing. If a case goes to trial, witnesses are often asked to appear in court. At times, an entire criminal case is built on eyewitness reports.
Eyewitness testimony can be a compelling form of evidence in a courtroom, but it’s not the strongest form of evidence. While jurors tend to believe eyewitnesses, their accounts are not as accurate as more objective evidence, such as DNA.
In the 1980s, DNA evidence started to become more widely accessible to police during criminal investigations. Instead of relying on the imperfect science of human memory, investigators could use DNA to make connections between suspects and crime scenes that were more specific and accurate than the accounts of eyewitnesses.
The ability to link an individual to a crime through DNA also allowed for the exoneration of people who had been wrongly convicted. The first exoneration by DNA evidence took place in the United States in 1989.
According to the Innocence Project, as of January 2020, 375 convictions had been overturned through DNA exoneration since 1989. Mistaken identification by eyewitnesses played a role in 61% of those wrongful convictions.
Eyewitness testimony is still used in courtrooms and can be one of the most crucial aspects of a case. Many legal experts believe that witness accounts can be trusted but emphasize that law enforcement officials must be mindful of how they elicit information from witnesses as well as how they respond to that information. They also need to be aware of the factors unique to eyewitnesses that can affect their memories.
Law enforcement officers can intentionally or unintentionally reinforce witnesses' expectations as they question them. If an eager witness feels pressured by law enforcement to offer information, they might attempt to fill in the blanks when asked a question rather than admitting that they don't know.
A witness's expectations about what they think should have happened can also influence their memory about what actually happened.
Eyewitnesses are generally motivated by a genuine desire to help solve the case. When they attempt to "fill in the blanks" or offer information they are unsure about, it's usually with good (albeit misguided) intentions.
There are some specific things that law enforcement officials need to keep in mind during an investigation when they’re working with eyewitnesses.
In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) created a task force in response to an increase in research on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony as well as an increase in DNA evidence that revealed wrongful convictions.
Experts on the task force were asked to develop guidelines for law enforcement to ensure that eyewitnesses would not be pressured, unconsciously encouraged, or persuaded to give false statements.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) created a guidebook for law enforcement officials based on the task force's work. Published in 1999, the guide outlines the correct way to interview and interact with eyewitnesses, discusses the factors that affect eyewitnesses, and provides law enforcement officials with strategies to collect the most accurate information.
Eyewitness testimony is not always about identifying the perpetrator—witnesses may also be asked about the facts of the case. Researchers have found that the words investigators use to gather facts can influence how people respond when asked about the details of an event.
In a classic experiment in 1974, researchers showed a group of students seven videos of traffic accidents, each ranging from five to 30 seconds long.
After showing them the footage, the researchers asked all the students the same question, but with slightly different wording: “About how fast were the cars going when they [smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted] each other?"
The speed estimates the students gave were affected by the verb used to ask the question. For example, when the word “contact” was used, students estimated much slower speeds than when the words “collide” or “smash” were used.
The researchers concluded that eyewitness testimony can be influenced not only by the questions police and investigators ask but also by the language they use to ask them.
In the second experiment by the same researchers, several groups of students viewed a one-minute film that showed four seconds of a multiple-vehicle traffic accident.
When questioning the students later, the researchers used slightly different wording (specifically, different verbs) with each group. Some students were asked, “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” while others were asked, “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into one another?”
A week later, both groups of students were asked if they saw broken glass in the footage of the accidents. Those who had been asked how fast the cars were going when they smashed into each other were more likely to say they saw broken glass—even though no broken glass was present in the accident.
The researchers concluded that word choice by investigators could potentially prompt witnesses to remember events as being worse than they actually were. In this way, an investigator's "leading" question might affect how a witness recalls a crime.
There are also factors specific to witnesses that influence how an event is recalled, as well as how the details are recounted when questioned by police. While it's not always possible to prevent these factors from interfering with an investigation, it's important for law enforcement professionals involved in a criminal investigation to be aware of them.
Crimes often take place in environments that are shrouded in darkness or concealed in some other way that makes identification difficult, so it's not uncommon for eyewitnesses to have a poor view of an event. Darkness, bad eyesight, an obstructed view, and a large distance between the witness and the action are all factors that can affect a witness’s ability to recall events accurately.
Eyewitness memory is not set in stone and may change in response to outside information. For example, an estimated 86% of eyewitnesses claim they spoke to other witnesses before talking to law enforcement. The problem of “co-witness conformity” can emerge when witnesses talk about what they saw and their perspectives influence one another.”
When a witness shares their memory of an event, others might be inclined to confirm it. They might say that they saw something (or someone) at a crime scene, even if they did not. When a witness is unsure about what or who they saw, they can be susceptible to suggestions made by other witnesses.
One factor that seems to play a key role in the reliability of eyewitness memory is immediacy—that is, how much time elapses between when someone witnesses a crime and when they are asked about what they saw.
A 2018 study concluded that “eyewitnesses typically provide reliable evidence on an initial, uncontaminated memory test, and this is true even for most of the wrongful convictions that were later reversed by DNA evidence.”
The researchers argued that eyewitnesses are usually correct immediately after a crime takes place, but that their memories become contaminated throughout the process of interviewing and questioning. These inaccuracies in eyewitnesses' memories can lead to wrongful convictions.
Still, eyewitnesses are generally motivated by a genuine desire to help solve the case. When they attempt to "fill in the blanks" or offer information they are unsure about, it's usually with good (albeit misguided) intentions.
It’s not just the time between when they witnessed an event and when they’re questioned, but how many times they’re asked to recount what happened. The more times that an eyewitness is questioned, the more likely it is that their memories will become contaminated.
Research has shown that being asked leading questions (e.g., by the police and/or the media) or hearing more information about a case from the news or other witnesses. Having to repeat their story many times (e.g., to multiple investigators) can also affect a person's memory.
Memory decay is also an issue with eyewitness testimony. Memories fade with time, and it's not uncommon for months if not years to pass before a case goes to trial.
Research has shown that the stress and trauma of being victimized or witnessing a crime can influence an individual's ability to accurately recount the details of an event.
The effects of stress on eyewitness memory are particularly noticeable when a weapon is used. In these situations, it's common for witnesses to be completely focused on the weapon rather than the person wielding it.
The "weapon focus effect" gives victims the ability to accurately describe a gun or knife (often in great detail) but leaves them with little to no knowledge of what the perpetrator looked like.
Eyewitnesses have preconceived notions about the type of people who commit certain crimes, and their bias affects how much information they retain about a suspect.
A 2016 study found that witnesses overwhelmingly remembered Black suspects’ faces incorrectly when they witnessed crimes that are more often associated with Black males, such as drive-by shootings. Eyewitnesses also remembered Black suspects' faces more accurately when they witnessed a crime that is usually associated with other races, such as serial killings.
Witnesses also tend to pair the worst crimes with people with darker skin. A 2016 study called “The Bad is Black Effect” found that when participants were asked to identify perpetrators, they were more likely to choose darker-skinned individuals for more heinous crimes. For less serious crimes, the witnesses were more likely to point to lighter-skinned individuals.
Research has consistently shown that people have difficulty recognizing individuals from other racial or ethnic groups. People struggle to discriminate among faces that do not resemble their own, especially if they are in a majority population group.
The "cross-race" effect has major implications for eyewitness testimony and the outcomes of criminal investigations.
Research has demonstrated that when a witness is asked to identify a stranger, misidentification is over 50% more likely if they are of a different race.
In the U.S., eyewitnesses are often shown a photo lineup and asked if they can identify the picture that shows the perpetrator.
Live lineups are also used. In this scenario, the eyewitness is brought in to view a group of people (usually from the other side of a pane of one-way glass) and then asked to state whether the perpetrator is present in the lineup.
Less often, an eyewitness will be shown a single photo and asked, “Is this the perpetrator?” However, single photos produce less accurate results than lineups.
It's not uncommon for an eyewitness to choose the person who best matches their memory of the perpetrator. This tendency makes it more likely that a witness will identify an innocent suspect who happens to closely resemble the real perpetrator.
In an oft-cited experiment, researchers staged a crime in the middle of a college lecture. A male actor posed as a vandal, entered the lecture hall, exchanged heated words with the instructor, and then knocked over a rack of machines.
When the audience was asked to identify the vandal in a lineup, the accuracy of the witnesses’ identifications depended on the instructions the researchers had given them. One group of students was instructed to choose the suspect from a lineup. The other group was told they did not have to make a choice if they did not think the suspect was in the lineup.
The suspect was only included in the lineup half the time.
The researchers found that telling students that they did not have to choose a suspect led to fewer false identifications compared to telling the students to choose. More importantly, the researchers found that being given instructions did not hinder the witnesses’ ability to make a correct identification.
The feedback a witness is given also makes a difference. Studies have shown that when law enforcement officials confirm a witness's choice in a lineup, the witness’s confidence is inflated. However, if police feedback suggests a witness failed to pick the “right” suspect, the witness's confidence wanes, which can affect future court testimony.
Here are a few real-world examples of how mistaken identification by eyewitnesses has led to wrongful convictions.
In 1990, two men were murdered during a drug deal in Philadelphia. Witnesses identified the suspect as a tall, light-skinned Black man who went by the name of Don Ray. Police began to search for a dark-skinned, short, Black man named Don Ray Adams, who went by the name Muhammad.
Adams went to the detectives when he found out they were trying to locate him, and he was arrested for the murders. The police also spoke to another person named Don Ray, who lived in the neighborhood where the murders had taken place but ruled him out as a suspect.
During the trial, two of the key witnesses said Adams had killed the two men during a drug deal, but six other witnesses could not identify Adams as the suspect. He was found guilty by the jury and sentenced to life in prison in 1992.
In 2007, the key witness recanted her testimony. She said she had been dealing with drug addiction at the time and that the police had pressured her to implicate Adams. He was granted a retrial and acquitted. Adams was released from prison in 2011 and sued the city of Philadelphia, which settled the case for $1 million.
In 2000, a Hispanic woman described as short and having an acne-scarred face robbed a Bank of America in Arizona. A woman named Rachel Jernigan matched the description and became a suspect after having a chance conversation with an FBI agent who was investigating and a post office employee’s suspicion that she may have shoplifted stamps.
Jernigan was arrested after the bank teller, Elizabeth Chlupsa, picked her photo out of a lineup.
In the time between Jernigan’s arrest and trial, two more robberies by a suspect who matched the description took place in Arizona. Jernigan was not charged with those crimes but still went on trial for the first robbery that had led to her arrest.
Jernigan's trial relied completely on eyewitness testimony, as there was no physical evidence. The fingerprint found at the bank did not belong to Jernigan, and a search had not turned up any of the stolen money or the weapon used during the robbery.
Jernigan’s attorney believed she had been misidentified, but she was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison.
However, later that year, a woman named Juanita Rodriguez-Gallego robbed the same bank. This time, the teller put a tracker in the money. The tracker quickly led law enforcement to Rodriguez-Gallego. After being charged, she pleaded guilty to only the firearm offense—the other charges were dropped. But word of her arrest got to Jernigan in prison, and she asked her lawyer for a new trial.
In 2004, the first motion for a new trial was denied. In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 9 th Circuit overturned the ruling and allowed Jernigan to have a new trial because it believed that evidence of another suspect who resembled Jernigan and had been committing robberies should have been turned over during the first trial.
In 2008, Rodriguez-Gallego confessed to the previous robberies—including the one that Jernigan had been convicted of. In 2008, the charges against Jernigan were dismissed, and she was released from prison. In 2008, she sued for wrongful conviction, and the case was settled for $1 million.
In 2011, two men were the victims of phone theft in Brooklyn, NY, within two weeks. In both cases, the suspect had approached them and asked what time it was, only to snatch their phones when they took them out to check. In the second robbery, the victim was injured by the robber’s knife.
Both victims gave a general description of the suspect: a Black man somewhere between the ages of 16 to mid-20s, with short hair, weighing around 160-190 pounds.
The phone of one of the victims, Eli Eichner, was recovered not long after. The man who had it said he’d purchased it from someone he described as a bald Black man in his 50s. The police put together a lineup, but Eichner said he couldn’t remember what the robber looked like, though he thought the suspects in the lineup were older.
The police did not attempt to use GPS data to try to get information about where the phone had been from the time it was stolen from Eichner and returned.
When a new detective, Maureen Sheehan, took on the case, she did not look over the notes. Even though Eichner had told police multiple times that he could not identify the robber, Sheehan put together a new lineup. It included a 19-year-old Black man named Otis Boone who had never had a criminal conviction (he had only been photographed when being stopped during a stop-and-frisk program).
When Eichner was brought in to look at the lineup, Boone had been positioned next to a much shorter man (5’8’’ to Boone’s 6’2’’). The other men in the lineup also had longer hair and were older than Boone. The police only asked Boone to step forward and say, “What time is it?” before asking Eichner if he could identify the robber.
Both Eichner and the other victim, Ben Zeitlin, identified Boone as the robber.
Boone had only met his attorney the day before his trial began, and the lawyer had not followed up on Boone’s claim that he had used a public benefits card miles away from the robbery and therefore could not have been there. His attorney asked that the judge consider the issues with cross-racial identification (both victims were white and Boone was Black), but the judge denied the request.
The trial convicted Boone, and he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He appealed, and the sentence was reduced to 15 years.
Then, in 2017, the New York Court of Appeals decided to reverse Boone’s conviction. Upon further evaluation, the court determined that the judge should have explained to the jury that there were issues with cross-racial identification.
Boone went to trial again in 2018. Again, both victims identified him as the robber. However, this time, the jury was educated on issues with racial cross-identification, and Boone’s lawyer was able to share evidence that showed Boone was not at the scene of the crime—indeed, state records proved he had used his benefits card about a mile away with a time stamp of about five minutes after the robbery had happened. The prosecution counted by stating Boone had taken a bus to the site of the robbery and managed to get there in under five minutes, but the jury felt that this theory was “wildly unlikely.”
In 2019, Boone was acquitted. He sued the city and the officers involved and settled for $200,000.
In 1997, the body of a man named Richard Daly was found in an alley in San Pedro, California. Informants told police that they believed a gang, Lawndale 13, was responsible for the murder. The tips included the names of three members who committed the crime as well as the address of the home where the murder had taken place.
There were two houses on the same lot, both of which were owned by Allene Mellen. The informants told police that the house at the back of the lot was where Daly had been murdered. The house was vacant but had recently been occupied by Allene and her daughter Susan, as well as Susan’s son and daughter. Robert Mellen Jr., Allene’s son, lived in the other house with his family. However, several other occupants, including one of the gang members, occasionally stayed at the house.
The police went to the homes to arrest the gang members, only to find that the back house was vacant and had been damaged in a fire. One of the gang members, Lester Monllor, was arrested at a different location and charged with Daly’s murder. Another member, Chad Landrum, was arrested and charged about a week later.
Of the three members the informant had mentioned, only one had yet to be arrested: Santo Alvarez. The detectives learned that he was currently helping detectives investigate another murder, so they dropped him as a suspect.
Then, a woman named June Patti called the police and claimed to be a paralegal. She stated that she had spoken to Susan Mellen and that she had confessed to being involved in Daly’s murder. According to Patti, Daly was homeless and was found in Mellen's house asleep on their couch. Patti said that Susan thought Daly was stealing, so she and her boyfriend (whom Patti identified as “Tom”) killed Daly.
The detectives next spoke to Patti’s sister, Laura, who was a police officer. Lauren said that her sister was a “pathological liar” who had just pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Lauren and her son. Patti was currently on probation.
However, Laura’s conversation with the detectives was never put on record. Not long after, Susan Mellen was arrested and charged with Daly’s murder. Mellen told them she was not involved in the murder—in fact, she had been moving on the day it took place.
The trial relied on June Patti’s testimony, but the details of her account changed frequently. The record of her sister’s earlier conversation with detectives, which would have put her reliability as a witness in question, was never turned over. What’s more, the autopsy findings did not match up with any of the descriptions of the murder that Patti had given, which she claimed Mellen had described to her.
Mellen testified in her own defense, and other witnesses came forward to say they had been with her on moving day or could otherwise confidently state that she could not have been present at or involved in the murder. Still, the jury convicted Mellen and she was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
In 2009, Shirly Knocke, a resident of the area, became friends with Alvarez, the third suspect who had never been charged. He confessed to her that he had helped kill Daly and that the woman who went to prison for the crime had nothing to do with it.
Several years later, Knocke reached out to the LA nonprofit Innocence Matters to let them know what she had learned about Daly’s murder. Both Mellen and Knocke were interviewed and took polygraphs that led investigators to believe they were being truthful.
In 2014, Alvarez started talking to Mellen’s nephew on social media, saying Mellen was innocent. Meetings with investigators and family members pieced together what had really happened, but Alvarez started to change his story. Then, one of the other suspects who was in prison said that Alvarez wasn’t involved. Investigators also learned that June Patti had, over the years, attempted to tell police that Mellen had been wrongfully convicted.
In the fall of 2014, a motion was filed to vacate Mellen’s conviction. The court decided there was no evidence of Mellen’s guilt, and she was released from prison.
Mellen first filed a civil suit in 2014 and was awarded $597,200 in compensation by the state of California. Her first federal suit against the LAPD detective was dismissed, but the appeal was successful and settled for $12 million in 2019.
Eyewitness testimony can be a crucial part of the criminal justice system, but it has flaws. The consequences of inaccurate testimony can be serious, particularly if it leads to the conviction of an innocent person.
Jurors, judges, police investigators, and legal representatives need to be educated on the factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness accounts and understand the role eyewitness testimony plays in a criminal investigation.
41 SourcesVerywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read our editorial process to learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.
By Amy Morin, LCSW
Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk, "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.
