Opinion ID: 384950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the unreliability of eyewitness identification

Text: Whatever doubt about identification testimony the circumstances of this case provokes, it is intensified by inquiry concerning the reliability or unreliability of eyewitness testimony generally. There is now a wealth of literature demonstrating the tendency of such evidence to be inaccurate. 16 Of course, this literature does not dictate a conclusion about Scott's identification of Butler. But it should alert us to an important problem that cannot be ignored in cases of this kind. As Judge McGowan noted, many experts have concluded that convictions based solely on one eyewitness identifications represent conceivably the greatest single threat to the achievement of our ideal that no innocent man shall be punished. 17 I will not rehearse here all of the recent literature in this area. 18 Rather, I will confine myself to highlighting the main themes that bear on the case before us. We are told that jurors place great faith in eyewitness testimony even in the face of information that discredits it. 19 Further, jurors tend to believe assertive, confident witnesses more readily than less positive ones. Yet, recent studies suggest that there is in fact no relationship at all between confidence and accuracy. 20 Indeed, when misleading information is introduced into a witness's memory close to the time he testifies, studies suggest he actually can be more confident about wrong than right information. 21 Also, witnesses often become more confident of the accuracy of their identification with the passage of time 22 as Officer Scott apparently did in the instant case. 23 Juries perceive trained observers, like policemen, as especially reliable identification witnesses. In this case, the prosecutor played upon that belief. 24 Yet, there is now evidence indicating that the police may be no better at identification than ordinary citizens. 25 What has been said so far deals with the way witnesses behave as they testify about their recollections. But learning about the operation of the memory itself as it seeks to recall an identity is even more revealing. Scholars have rejected the popular notion that the memory acts like a tape recorder, where remembering is merely a process of playing back the tape. We now know that memory ... is an active, constructive process that often introduces inaccuracies by adding details not present in the initial representation or in the event itself. 26 Of particular relevance to this case is the constructive role in memory of a phenomenon called transference. People often have difficulty remembering the context in which they first encountered a piece of information. 27 Thus, it is possible for a witness to correctly identify a person as one whom he has met, while incorrectly placing that person in a particular context. 28 It is conceivable that this kind of transference occurred in the instant case. We know that Robert Butler sometimes passed through the area in which the transactions between Number 8 and Officer Scott took place. 29 It is probable that Officer Scott, who for five months staked out that area, had seen Butler. Therefore it would not be surprising if, having spotted Butler in that same neighborhood about a month after his last contact with Number 8, Scott recognized Butler, associated him with the context of that neighborhood on earlier occasions, and unconsciously transferred his memories about Number 8 to Butler. Aspects of memory operation other than transference aggravate the danger of misidentification in cases like the one at hand. There is extensive research showing that observers unwittingly distort their perceptions to comport with personal needs. This phenomenon creates a serious danger of mistake in cases where there is pressure on the observer to identify someone. 30 This caused one researcher to conclude: (I)dentifications made by policemen in highly competitive activities, such as undercover narcotics agents, whose chances for promotion may depend upon the number of arrests made because of their sales, should be scrutinized with special care. 31 Based upon current research about the operation of the memory, experts have developed several danger signals to sensitize investigators and courts to the danger of a mistake in memory. We have mentioned some: a growing confidence in the testimony on the part of the witness, a claim of special ability as an observer, a setting conducive to transference, a context that creates pressure on the witness to identify someone. Other danger signals include: omissions in the initial description, 32 a lapse in time between the relevant encounter and the identification, 33 and a serious discrepancy in the description especially a discrepancy in height, weight or age. 34 Significantly, every one of these danger signals is present in the case at hand.