Perceptions and Credibility: Understanding the Nuances of Eyewitness Testimony

• DOI: 10.1177/1043986211405886
• Author: Ashley Hoffman,Karen C. Rose,Lauren O'Neill Shermer
• Date: 01 May 2011
• Published date: 01 May 2011
• Subject Matter: Articles

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

27(2) 183 –203

© 2011 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1043986211405886

http://ccj.sagepub.com

CCJ40588

6CCJ27210.1177/1043986211405886Shermer et al.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

1Widener University, Chester, PA

Corresponding Author:

Lauren O’Neill Shermer, Department of Criminal Justice, Widener University,

Kapelski Learning Center 231, One University Place, Chester, PA 19013

Email: loshermer@mail.widener.edu

Perceptions and

Credibility:

Understanding the

Nuances of Eyewitness

Testimony

Lauren O’Neill Shermer1, Karen C. Rose1,

and Ashley Hoffman1

Abstract

Of the first 225 exonerations of wrongfully convicted individuals in the United States

by the Innocence Project, 77% were based on mistaken eyewitness identifications.

Given the mounting evidence on reliability issues surrounding eyewitness testimony,

coupled with the fact that forensic evidence is neither infallible nor always available,

it becomes important to better understand how jurors use these different types of

evidence in their decision making. The current research seeks to fill a void in the

literature by evaluating the influence of eyewitness testimony on case outcomes while

accounting for other types of evidence (e.g., DNA). Although the results underscore

the value of forensic DNA evidence, they also highlight the importance of eyewitness

testimony in juror decision making. In fact, both pretrial perceptions of the reliability

of eyewitness evidence and the credibility of an eyewitness during trial significantly

impact the desired verdict for jurors above and beyond other types of evidence.

Implications for case processing and avenues for future research are discussed.

Keywords

eyewitness testimony, types of evidence, jury decision-making

Article

184 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27(2)

The use of forensic science as a tool in the search for truth allows justice to be done not

only by apprehending the guilty, but also by freeing the innocent.

Keynote address by Attorney General Janet Reno before the

American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee,

February 21, 1996 (Connors, Lundregan, Miller, & McEwen, 1996)

Although advances in forensic investigation techniques and technologies have helped

to solve many cases that would not have been solvable in the past, it is clear that foren-

sic science is not infallible. Policy organizations such as the Innocence Project have

utilized forensic DNA evidence to facilitate the release of more than 267 wrongfully

convicted individuals (Innocence Project, 2011). A lesser-known fact, however, is that

the overwhelming majority of wrongful convictions stem from eyewitness misidenti-

fications; in fact, eyewitness errors were responsible for more than 75% of the exon-

erations by the Innocence Project (2011). This should come as no surprise because

nearly 80,000 suspects are targeted each year on the basis of eyewitness identification

(Goldstein, Chance, & Schneller, 1989). However, “Insofar as identification proce-

dures are fair, mistaken identifications per se are not to blame for injustice, for it is not

the eyewitness who convicts the innocent suspect; it is the judge or the jury” (Cutler,

Penrod, & Dexter, 1989, p. 311).

In criminal cases, decisions of guilt or innocence lie on a group of laypersons who

often know very little about the science behind these different types of evidence. To

jurors there is little that is more persuasive than an eyewitness testifying that he or she

saw the defendant commit a crime. It becomes important then to better understand

how jurors use these different types of evidence in their decision making because,

though forensic evidence has proven effective at correcting cases of wrongdoing

within the system, it is not always available. Jurors, therefore, are sometimes called to

make decisions without the assistance of forensics or alongside multiple types of evi-

dence. Despite the increasing use of forensics, eyewitness identifications remain

among the most commonly used and compelling evidence brought against criminal

defendants (Innocence Project, 2011). That being said, it becomes the responsibility of

the criminal justice system to understand the use of this type of information by jurors,

and furthermore, educate them on the strengths and weaknesses of eyewitness testi-

mony. While the courts have taken responsibility for informing jurors on how to eval-

uate forensic evidence, they are less inclined to intervene when it comes to eyewitness

testimony. The current research aims to make a convincing argument as to why the

system can no longer be reticent in this respect.

Literature Review

There is a growing body of literature on different aspects of eyewitness reliability,

including problems with lineup and photo identification procedures (e.g., Wells &

Quinlivan, 2009), as well as detailed descriptions of the stages of the memory process

(see, for example, Fradella, 2006; Loftus, 1981). To adequately review all areas of