Eyewitness Testimony: Article Analysis

1. This article focuses on how positive and negative feedback may affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. More closely, the level of confidence at the time of identifying a suspect from a lineup, as opposed to the level of confidence that an eyewitness has at the time of giving their testimony in court. The article gives an example of a woman who spends upwards of 40 minutes fighting herself over her indecision while identifying who her assailant was out of a lineup, often using terms like “maybe” and “I don’t know”. Yet, when it came to the trial, and she was called upon to make her case, in response to being asked if she was sure in her conviction, she states, “There was no maybe about it… I was absolutely positive.”(Missouri V. Huchting

Eyewitnesses are such a powerful tool because, “...eyewitnesses are too persuasive in the sense that their confidence and other qualities of their testimony are greatly exaggerated.”(Wells/Bradfield 1998). This can be a useful tool in any courtroom, heavily turning a case in one's favor. However, this can also be (and often is) a dangerous aspect to using eyewitnesses in a trial, because a witness who strongly believes in their identification of a suspect can solidify a verdict, even if the suspect is innocent. It becomes monumentally more dangerous when you find that the eyewitness’ confidence can be swayed into a desired direction. Researchers Wells and Bradfield had to take into account the different variables that factor into the confidence levels of eyewitnesses spanning the gap between the identification of a suspect and their testimony. To help narrow this window, the researchers employed what they called a “postidentification feedback paradigm”, which through only administering feedback after the viewing and identification processes allows the researchers to assume that any variation of recollection stemming from the use of feedback manipulation would be forms of false recall about the witnessing process (Wells/Bradfield