This document summarizes research on the causes of eyewitness misidentification. It identifies several key factors that can lead to mistaken eyewitness identification, including memory influences like overconfidence and the effects of retrieval cues on recall. It also discusses how a lack of knowledge among legal professionals and jurors can contribute to errors, as well as how focusing on a weapon during a crime can impair an eyewitness's memory of other details. The document analyzes multiple studies on this topic and provides an in-depth review of the psychological research into why eyewitness testimony is not always reliable.

1. Running head: EYEWITNESS ERRORS
Psycho-Legal Issues: Eyewitness Errors
Joseph Guiliano
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Professor Wolbransky
Psychology and the Law
Spring 2015
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
1

2. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
Abstract
In the United States and across the world, the issue of eyewitness misidentification has
become prevalent and a center of controversy. In this paper, the aim is to explore the causes and
the solutions to eyewitness identification errors. To accomplish this objective, secondary data
will be explored. It was identified that among the causes of misidentification of suspects includes
lack of competence of the participants in the judicial system, memory influences, and
overconfidence of the eyewitnesses. The most likely solutions would include a greater
cooperation with the legal or the criminal justice professionals and more field studies of the
eyewitness reforms, instituting the I-I-Eye method, implementing proper and improved legal
safeguards, and educating the participants of the criminal justice system.
Keywords: Eyewitness, Psychology, Psycho-Legal Issues
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
2

3. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
Introduction
In the United States, there have been over 200 exonerations for those wrongfully
convicted due to mistaken eyewitness identifications (Shermer, Rose, Hoffman, 2011, p.183).
This issue has plagued our criminal justice system for over a century and to date, it continues to
do so. Many factors come into play when eyewitnesses recall information, which in effect lead to
misidentification and sometimes, false memories. This is indeed a controversial issue and has
attracted the interest of a diverse range of commentators including researchers and activists. The
present paper is based on this issue. As such, it seeks to identify and describe the controversy,
dilemma, the ethical considerations, as well as the challenges that surround the misidentification
of eyewitnesses. Of central interest will be the reason for their occurrence. Aside from this, the
paper will recommend the most appropriate solutions, which will successfully eliminate the
controversial issue within the American society.
Part One
Causes of Eyewitness Misidentification
There has been a significant range of knowledge about the controversy, dilemma, ethical
considerations, as well as the challenges that surround the misidentification of eyewitnesses.
Among the researchers that have made efforts in this context are Roediger and colleagues
(2014). In this study, it was discussed that one of the main reasons as to why eyewitness
misidentification occurs, is the memory confidence of the eyewitness. The researchers described
that though useful; it is usually an imperfect identifier or indicator of truth. It is usually held out
that the more confident a person is in remembering the past events, the higher the chances that he
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
3

4. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
or she will provide more accurate information (Lucas & Brewer, 2015). However, this is not
always the case. It has been reported in this study that “the idea that confidence and accuracy are
tightly linked” (Lucas & Brewer, 2015 p.52) is not correct, and this is one consideration that the
judicial system has not appreciated. Eyewitnesses tend to be overconfident and usually believe
that they are indeed correctly identifying the right or the correct person who perpetrated the
crime. Memory, according to Lucas & Brewer (2015), is affected by a range of factors, which in
turn affect how vivid a person can recall a given event. The researchers gave an account of the
power of the retrieval cues. As such, the traces of a past experience, which cannot be accessed
with a given form of a retrieval cue, can be easily retrieved with another Lucas & Brewer, 2015).
In another study conducted by Wise, Sartori, Magnussen and Sfer (2014), it was
identified that the stakeholders or the participants involved in the criminal justice system are
among the causes of eyewitnesses’ misidentification. It was identified that the majority of these
participants usually have essentially limited knowledge of the factors attributed to eyewitness. In
addition to this, it was described that the surveys that are usually conducted by the participants of
the system tend to overestimate their level of knowledge. Wise, Sartori, Magnussen and Sfer
(2014) advanced the idea that the surveys put the participants’ focus on the attention of the
respondents regarding the various relevant eyewitness factors, only requiring them to recognize
as opposed to generating the appropriate or the correct answer. This is detrimental as there is a
possibility of the respondents guessing. The researchers further reported that the principle
participants in the criminal justice system usually have immense trouble when it comes to the
application of knowledge to the facts attributed to a specified case.
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
4

5. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
Sarwara, Allwood, and Innes-Kera (2014) also made chief contributions to the growing
knowledge of why eyewitness misidentification takes place. Just like the case of Roediger et al.
(2014) and Lucas and Brewer (2015), the researchers sought to investigate the association
between the memory of the eyewitnesses and the accuracy of confidence for action, as well as
detailed information. It was revealed that eyewitnesses usually have a better recall and
confidence with respect to the action as opposed to detail information. In other words, in
retelling actions, eyewitnesses are significantly accurate. However, when it comes to giving
details about a given past event, they are particularly inefficient. Nevertheless, even with a high
ability to retell actions, the accuracy confidence of the eyewitnesses usually remains unaltered.
In summary, the researchers described that for both focused and free recall questions,
eyewitnesses tend to recall more and have better confidence accuracy especially with regard to
action information as compared to detailed information (Sarwara, Allwood, and Innes-Kera,
2014). In the light of this, the researchers warned that it is imperative to take extra precaution in
the forensic system, and this is particularly so when the criminal justice system seeks to consider
detailed information from the eyewitnesses.
Inferring from Clements (2007), the inadequacies of the criminal justice practitioners,
especially the juries, in meaningfully determining the accuracy of the eyewitness identification
also contributes to the expansive nature of eyewitness misidentification. It is documented in this
particular research that juries tend to believe the eyewitnesses even where the level or the nature
of the evidence is questionable. To worsen the case, juries are known to dispose off any form of
information that seems to challenge their faith in the eyewitnesses. Besides, Clements (2007)
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
5

6. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
claimed that the criteria through which jurors tend to judge the reliability of the eyewitness
account completely fails to correlate with accuracy. Also, Clements holds the idea that the
eyewitness is often overly confident about the accuracy of their testimony. This is one of the
three criteria used by the jury to assess the validity of an eyewitness account. The other two
include consistency and the memory of the specific details. Despite the case, Clements (2007)
claims that none of the three usually correlates with the identification accuracy. In light of this, it
is worthwhile to claim that jurors play a significant role in the occurrence of eyewitness
misidentification.
Similar to Clements’ thoughts are those that have been advanced by Shermer, Rose and
Hoffman (2011). Firstly, the researchers identified that indeed, the issue of eyewitness
misidentification in the US has exceeded the scope and is thus a critical issue. It was revealed
that the jurors make the eyewitness testimony their priority form of evidence. It was indicated in
the study that both pretrial perceptions regarding the reliability of the evidence by the eyewitness
and credibility during trial tend to impact the desired verdict of the juror in a significant manner,
above, as well as beyond the other forms of evidences. What the researchers, in this case, are
trying to put across is that jurors have unwarrantedly laid their focus on eyewitness, believing
that it is more reliable and credible when compared to other sources of evidence including the
DNA (Shermer, Rose, and Hoffman, 2011). There are several considerations that should be
accounted for. One of these is that some of the eyewitnesses are unsure. Therefore, with such a
belief system, the researchers are of the idea that the issue of misidentification will always
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
6

7. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
prevail. The jurors have permitted this, and are indeed unwilling to change their stance or
perspective.
Loftus, E., Loftus, G. and Messo (1987) indicated that the weapon focus is a major
contributor to the growing issue of witness misidentification within the American society. In this
landmark study, it revealed that the eyewitnesses usually focus on the weapon, and the
consequence is that his or the reliability to remember other essential details is eroded (Loftus, E.,
Loftus, G. and Messo, 1987). The researchers provided an example of a person who witnessed a
customer point a gun at the cashier. They indicated that such a person would fix his or her
concentration on the gun than on other essential facts of the case. In such a case, an eyewitness’
description of a perpetrator of a crime would be insufficient, and it is highly likely that it may
lead to the apprehension of the wrong culprit. This was further confirmed by, Saunders (2009).
In this study, it was reported that the focus on the weapon usually impairs the eyewitness’
memory. In such a case, it is more likely that the eyewitness will include other additive
information, which are incorrect, and this leads to the identification of a suspect who did not
commit the crime.
Part 2
Proposed solution
Other researchers have focused their attention on offering the solutions to the continued
occurrence of eyewitness misidentification. Among them are Wise, Dauphinais, and Safer,
(2007). In this study, a tripartite solution has been advanced. As the name suggests, this
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
7

8. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
particular solution is comprised of three central components. The first one is seeking to permit
the expert testimony in the event that the eyewitness testimony is adopted as the sole or the
primary source of proof against an offender. The second component, according to the
researchers, is seeking to improve the procedures and the processes usually involved in the
collection of eyewitness evidence. On this, the researchers detailed that eyewitness interviews
should be conducted and identification procedures undertaken in a manner that is consistent with
the best practices that have been recommended by the body of knowledge in the field. The third
component is providing education to the principle participants within the criminal justice system
regarding the eyewitness testimony. According to the researchers, this has the potential to
sensitize them with respect to the effects of eyewitness influences. Wise, Dauphinais, and Safer
(2007) acknowledge that this particular solution would provide the participants with a conceptual
framework through which they can gain an understanding and evaluate eyewitness testimonies,
and at the same time, provide practical suggestions.
In their research study, Wise, Sartoti, Magnussen, Safer, Byk, and Hogan (2014) also
proposed a set of solutions to the issue. One of these was education. The researchers were of the
view that, due to the notion that the principle participants in the criminal justice system have
insufficient knowledge regarding the eyewitness factors; education regarding the same is
necessitated. The researchers recommended that law schools teach the law students regarding the
eyewitnesses. The researchers provided an example in which they related that the law courses,
which include the criminal law and procedures, could incorporate in depth data about the various
forms of errors made by the eyewitnesses, the causes, as well as the legal safeguards that are
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
8

9. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
needed in order to keep the errors down. Aside from this, it was proposed that both judges and
attorneys should be trained with such education involving an extensive instruction regarding the
eyewitnesses. On top of this, it was determined in this particular study that psychologists who
are usually involved in the conduction of the eyewitness testimony should be intensively
knowledgeable about the criminal trials and investigations. This will ensure that the
recommendations that they make for eyewitness reforms are inconsistent with the realities of the
criminal justice systems.
A further solution to the issue, as advanced by Wise, Sartoti, Magnussen, Safer, Byk, and
Hogan (2014) is the implementation of proper and improved legal safeguards. The researchers
revealed that even where the case of law enforcement adapted all the required reforms for proper
identification and interview procedures, eyewitness errors would still prevail. Considering this, it
was proposed that an effective safeguard for identifying the errors made by the eyewitnesses has
to be developed. The researchers proposed the I-I-Eye method. This particular approach
involves four central steps. The first is the determination of whether the law officers conducted
eyewitness interviews in order to obtain the maximum amount of accurate information, whether
they contaminated the recollection of the eyewitness with post-event information, or whether
they artificially increased the confidence of the eyewitness. The second step in this method is the
assessment of “whether the identification procedures were conducted in the appropriate manner”
(Wise, Sartoti, Magnussen, Safer, Byk, and Hogan, 2014). The third approach involves the
evaluation of the manner in which the eyewitness factors, during the time the crime happened,
could have affected the accuracy of the eyewitness. The last step that characterized the I-I-Eye
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
9

10. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
method is making conclusions regarding the likely level of accuracy of the eyewitness testimony
in the case under consideration (Wise, Sartoti, Magnussen, Safer, Byk, and Hogan, 2014).
A further solution is a greater cooperation with the legal or the criminal justice
professionals and more field studies of the eyewitness reforms. According to Wise, Sartoti,
Magnussen, Safer, Byk, and Hogan (2014), the participants in the justice system usually have the
knowledge, and expertise, as well as the experience that is often lacked, taking the psychologists
into account. Besides, the knowledge and skills that they usually depict are of core importance
towards the creation of effective reforms, which have essentially strong ecological validity. On
top of this, the researchers acknowledged that the legal professionals have to deal with adverse
and extended consequences of the eyewitness reforms. Given this, it is important that the legal
professionals get involved in the development and the testing of eyewitness reforms. This would,
in turn, motivate them despite the challenges and the problems that they tend to face. Many
participants in the system highly despise reforms because they tend to believe that they will only
serve to benefit certain departments such as the defense meaning that most of the offenders will
go free. Also, the psychologists are usually insufficient in educating the legal professionals
regarding the way in which reforms could benefit them. Rather than the continued difference
between the various stakeholders, they should strive to coordinate and work together. In this
way, the eyewitness errors would greatly decrease.
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
10

11. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
Conclusion
In most countries including the United States, eyewitness misidentification is indeed a
very prevalent issue, and one that is marred with controversy. It has led to a situation in which
wrong and innocent people have been convicted, and this has significantly diminished the
effectiveness of the judicial system. There is a range of causes. These include the lack of
knowledge and competency in the participants of the system concerning eyewitness, and the
effect on memory by a diverse range of factors, among others. In order to mitigate the chances of
errors, several changes could be instituted. Among the discussed approaches include a greater
cooperation with the legal or the criminal justice professionals and more field studies of the
eyewitness reforms, instituting the I-I-Eye method, implementing proper and improved legal
safeguards, and educating the participants of the criminal justice system. With these, the rate of
misidentification errors will be diminished.
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
11

12. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
References
Clements, N. (2007). Flipping a coin: A solution for the inherent unreliability of eyewitness
identification testimony. Indiana Law Review, 40(2), 271-290.
Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about” weapon focus.”. Law and
Human Behavior, 11(1), 55.
Lucas, C.,A., & Brewer, N. (2015). Eyewitness identification when “The perpetrator reminds
me of someone I know”. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 22(1), 49-59.
Roediger, H. L., et al. (2012). The Curious Complexity between Confidence and Accuracy in
Reports from Memory. Memory and law, 84.
Sarwar, F., Allwood, C. M., & Innes-Ker, Å. (2014).Effects of different types of forensic
information on eyewitness’ memory and confidence accuracy. European Journal of
Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 6(1), 17-27.
Saunders, J. (2009). Memory impairment in the weapon focus effect. Memory & cognition,
37(3), 326-335.
Shermer, L. O. N., Rose, K. C., & Hoffman, A. (2011). Perceptions and credibility:
Understanding the nuances of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 27(2), 183-203.
Wise, R. A., Dauphinais, K. A., & Safer, M. A. (2007). A tripartite solution to eyewitness
error. Journal of Criminal Law& Criminology, 97(3), 807-871.
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
12

13. EYEWITNESS ERRORS
Wise, R. A., Sartori, G., Magnussen, S., Safer, M. A., Byk, D., & Hogan, E. (2014).An
examination of the causes and solutions to eyewitness error. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 5,
1-8.
© Joseph A. Guiliano, 2015
13