ABSTRACT
In the criminal justice system, eyewitness testimony is extremely important and has a big impact on jury and court judgments. An increasing corpus of research, however, exposes the fallibility of human memory, showing that biases, stress, and anxiety are some of the reasons why eyewitness recollections can be inaccurate. As evidenced by the many cases where DNA evidence overturned convictions, this fallibility frequently results in unjust convictions. Furthermore, eyewitness recollections can be distorted by verbal and nonverbal clues, including gestures, which further calls into question their credibility. Reforms including video-recorded interviews, expert testimony from scientists, and pretrial judicial inquiry are necessary to increase the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. By addressing concerns with ambiguity, prejudice, and overconfidence, these steps can guarantee that eyewitness testimony is assessed more thoroughly and truthfully in court.
KEY WORDS
Eyewitness Testimony, Visual Perception, Memory Distortion, Gestural Misinformation, Judicial Reliability
INTRODUCTION
In the criminal justice system, eyewitness testimony is extremely important and is frequently used as supporting evidence in court cases. It entails people remembering and narrating things they have seen, usually in an effort to identify the guilty or describe crime scenes. Eyewitness testimony is a potent weapon in the fight for justice since jury verdicts and court decisions can be greatly influenced by how reliable the testimony is viewed. Law enforcement and courts have historically used eyewitness identification in this capacity both domestically and internationally, and it has been crucial to both convictions and acquittals.
A rising collection of research demonstrating the fallibility of human memory has made the credibility of eyewitness testimonies a critical issue in modern times. Research has indicated that a multitude of circumstances might sway eyewitness recalls and identifications, causing inaccuracies. The large number of erroneous convictions reversed by DNA evidence in cases where incorrect eyewitness identification had a role shows the seriousness of such mistakes. This calls into question the impartiality and correctness of legal procedures and emphasizes the need for better techniques to guarantee the veracity of eyewitness accounts. The paper makes the case that although eyewitness evidence is still an essential feature of the criminal justice framework, a number of cognitive and contextual variables undermine its validity. Improving the veracity of eyewitness testimonies and guaranteeing justice require creative approaches and reforms to address these issues.
Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. Research and courtroom experience demonstrate that
expecting an eyewitness to accurately recount the details of a crime is unrealistic. Human perception, while generally effective for everyday functioning, is inconsistent and prone to error. Despite this, witnesses in investigations or courtrooms are often expected to function like tape recorders, perfectly capturing and replaying events. During a trial, the prosecution seeks to extract stored facts and scenes from the witness, aiming to prove that their memory is flawless. Meanwhile, the defense attempts to highlight any flaws in the witness’s recollection, pointing out gaps and inaccuracies. Both sides, along with the witness, often fall into the mistaken belief that memories are recorded exactly as they happened and can be reliably recalled through questioning.
Human perception and memory operate efficiently by being selective and constructive. Ulric Neisser of Cornell University notes that “neither perception nor memory is a copying process.” Instead, both are decision-making processes influenced by a person’s overall abilities, background, attitudes, motives, beliefs, the environment, and the manner in which their recollection is eventually tested. A witness’s testimony regarding incriminating circumstances, disclosed only after a significant delay, loses credibility. If a witness claims to have knowledge of crucial incriminating evidence against a person accused of murder but remains silent for over two months without a valid reason, the value of their statement is significantly diminished.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study combines analytical and doctrinal approaches. It entails a thorough analysis of pertinent case laws and academic research on the subject of eyewitness credibility. In order to comprehend the legal framework and judicial interpretation regarding eyewitness reliability, primary sources such as legal statutes and judicial decisions are rigorously evaluated. Secondary sources, such as books, journal articles, and internet sites, shed light on the practical and theoretical aspects of the credibility of eyewitness evidence as well as any potential ramifications for the Indian legal system.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The journal article “Why Eyewitnesses Fail” edited by Charles D. Gilbert, emphasizes the importance of eyewitness identifications in criminal investigations and prosecutions while noting their potential for major errors. The National Academy of Sciences formed a team to investigate current processes and determine why identification errors occur, resulting in the paper “Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification. In order to increase accuracy and dependability, this article looks at the scientific issues this study presented and offers suggestions for more research, best practices for law enforcement, and the use of eyewitness testimony in court.
In Article “The Intractability of Inaccurate Eyewitness Identification,” Jed S. Rakoff and Elizabeth F. Loftus emphasize that one of the main reasons for erroneous convictions is faulty eyewitness testimony. Even though this problem was first identified by the US Supreme Court, new research indicates that eyewitness evidence is frequently incorrect due to limits in human perception and memory. Although lineups and photo arrays for identification processes should be improved, these innate obstacles still exist. One way to address these problems is by making juries aware of the limitations of eyewitness testimony. However, research on the usefulness of expert testimony and special jury instructions in enhancing juror judgment has produced conflicting findings.
Gurney, Pine, and Wiseman’s article “The Gestural Misinformation Effect: Skewing Eyewitness Testimony Through Gesture” examines how nonverbal cues affect eyewitness testimony. It illustrates how deceptive gestures used in conjunction with spoken inquiries can skew witnesses’ recollections through three experiments. The results of the three experiments—two of which used video footage and the third which featured a live interview—all shown that the participants’ memories matched the misleading information expressed through gestures. These results emphasize the importance of nonverbal cues in recall and the need for care in courtroom situations to avoid gestural disinformation influencing eyewitness accuracy.
THE FALLIBILITY OF VISUAL PERCEPTION AND MEMORY IN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
Accurately observing something is the first step towards correctly identifying what you have seen. Studies have demonstrated that light and fundamental aspects of images are detected during vision. Still, our perception of what we see is incredibly limited. Perception combines the information that has been chosen with the information that has been eliminated to create a cohesive image. Three main factors limit the dependability of visual experiences: confidence, bias, and uncertainty. The source of uncertainty is the noise present in sensory signals, which can come from external sources like glare or shadows, internal issues with the visual system like improper light processing, or external distractions like loud noises. This noise makes it harder to be certain of what we are seeing, which increases the likelihood of errors.
Bias fills in the blanks when we are unclear. It makes intelligent assumptions about what we see based on past experiences. For instance, even though the data is ambiguous, we may still perceive a gun if we expect a bank robber to have one. Confidence is the conviction that our observations are true, although it’s often misguided. Even in situations when there is little or faulty information, people are more likely to feel secure when their perceptions are coherent. This often helps us understand the outside world, but it can also occasionally lead to mistakes, such as mistaking a coat rack for an intruder.
Eyewitness perception is a form of memory from which a suspect can be identified; this memory is referred to as declarative memory and consists of consciously accessible details about events and their meanings; it functions differently from visual perception and is influenced by factors such as uncertainty, bias, and confidence; declarative memory involves three core processes: encoding (the act of putting information into memory), retrieval (the process of accessing the stored information), and storage (the maintenance of that information). These processes are dynamic and subject to outside influences; consequently, memories are not like perfectly preserved photographs kept in a safe; rather, they can be compromised at any time by a variety of factors. Unconsciously bias information, which we may then forget, rebuild, or alter based on fresh information from the media, law enforcement, attorneys, family, and friends. This extra information can cloud our recollections and make it less likely that we will recognize a suspect with accuracy. Furthermore, even if several sources are not independent and are untrustworthy, our confidence in our memories may be bolstered when they present consistent information.
THE IMPACT OF GESTURE ON EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
Previous research has shown that manipulating verbal information can distort an eyewitness’s memory and affect their responses (Harris, 1973; Loftus, 1975; Loftus & Palmer, 1974). This study extends that finding by demonstrating that witnesses can also be misled by information conveyed through hand gestures.
Gestures can provide additional meaning to listeners (Cassell et al., 1999; Kelly et al., 1999) and affect eyewitness testimony in both children (Broaders & Goldin-Meadow, 2010) and adults. In Experiment, when the interviewer’s question was accompanied by a correct gesture, participants were more likely to give an accurate report. However, when the gesture was incorrect, participants often reported inaccurate information. Experiment confirmed that misleading gestures could independently influence responses. This indicates that the interviewer’s gestures, rather than the speech, influenced participants’ responses.
Experiment replicated these results in a more realistic interview setting. Although participants felt they were influenced by the gestures and could identify misleading ones, they were still susceptible to misinformation conveyed through gestures. These findings show a gestural misinformation effect, demonstrating that misleading post-event information can be communicated not only through speech but also through gestures. While gestures can improve communication efficiency, they can also lead to the recall of false information, impacting eyewitness testimony.
To reduce the risk of gestural misinformation, it is important to video record initial interviews with witnesses, ensuring that the interviewer is fully visible. This allows for the detection of any misleading gestures, which might go unnoticed in audio recordings. Gestures can subtly influence communication by conveying visual details not expressed in speech. They are a powerful communication tool, often going unnoticed but still impacting the accuracy of eyewitness reports. Gestures are often spontaneous and unplanned (Krauss, 1998; McNeill, 1996) and might be made for personal reasons, like finding the right words, without intending to communicate anything specific (Rauscher, Krauss, & Chen, 1996). However, listeners can still interpret these gestures (Krauss, Chen, & Gottesman, 2000). For example, the semantic specificity hypothesis indicates that gestures for objects used with hands (praxic objects) are more common than those for other objects (Pine, Gurney, & Fletcher, 2010). While speech can be controlled, gestures are often automatic, meaning speakers are less aware of them and the information they might convey.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY ADMISSIBILITY
The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam regulates the admissibility of eyewitness testimony in India. While eyewitness testimony is frequently used by courts, recent rulings have emphasized the importance of supporting evidence because of the possibility of inaccuracies The authenticity of eyewitness testimonies in India can be influenced by cultural factors such as deference to authority and societal pressures. According to studies, witnesses might be more receptive to pressure or suggestion
The Honourable Supreme Court of India has unequivocally declared in the Harijiana Thirupala case that the Court’s method to evaluating the evidence must be comprehensive, not abridged or separated. The Apex Court further declared that the evidence presented to the court must be valued, analysed, and assessed using the standard of probability, its inherent value, and the bias of the witnesses in order for the court to determine whether or not the accused is guilty. “In the end, the decision in every case depends upon the facts of each case,” the Supreme Court declared.
The legal system in the United States acknowledges the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and frequently puts mechanisms in place to lessen its unreliability. The Supreme Court has recognized problems including suggestibility and memory distortion (Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977). In addition, it is more customary to employ expert testimony regarding the limitations of eyewitness testimony (Loftus, E.F., “Eyewitness Testimony,” Harvard University Press, 1996).
Strict criteria are in place in the UK for managing eyewitness testimony. These guidelines include identification procedures that reduce errors and specific protocols for police line-ups (PACE Code D). The dangers of erroneous convictions due to incorrect identifications have been brought to light by the Court of Appeal (R v. Turnbull [1977] QB 224). Australia has stringent regulations for eyewitness testimony, much like the UK. The importance of exercising caution and obtaining confirmation when depending on eyewitness testimony has been emphasized by the High Court (Dominican v. The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555).
ADVANCEMENTS IN ENHANCING EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY RELIABILITY
The creation of improved interviewing methods, especially the Cognitive Interview (CI), is one of the major advancements in raising the credibility of eyewitness testimony. By enabling witnesses to reconstruct the occurrence from several perspectives and in varied temporal ordering, this strategy aims to encourage a more accurate memory of events. Leading inquiries have less of an effect because to the CI approach, which also makes memory retrieval more thorough and precise. According to research, applying the CI can dramatically boost the amount of accurate information that is remembered without also increasing the amount of wrong information (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Because it works with the way memory naturally functions, this method helps witnesses remember events in a way that is less prone to distortion.
Another important innovation to improve the credibility of eyewitness testimony is the practice of videotaping initial interviews. In addition to capturing witnesses’ spoken words, video recordings also record their nonverbal clues, which can be extremely helpful in spotting any possible interviewer bias or influence. Video recordings offer a trustworthy resource that can be consulted again throughout judicial processes since they maintain the original testimony’s context and content. This technique ensures that the witness’s account is as accurate and unaffected as possible by helping to identify any potentially deceptive gestures or suggestive questioning. Research has shown that videotaped interviews can result in an appraisal of eyewitness testimony that is more transparent and objective (Lamb et al., 2000).
The inclusion of expert testimony regarding the limitations of human memory and perception in legal procedures is a noteworthy development in the way judges handle eyewitness accounts. The disinformation effect, cognitive biases, and the frequently deceptive nature of confidence in identifications are just a few of the inherent weaknesses of eyewitness evidence that experts in cognitive psychology and neuroscience can tell juries and judges about. Expert testimony offers a scientific viewpoint that aids in placing eyewitness testimony in the larger context of human memory, encouraging a more critical and knowledgeable evaluation of its veracity. It has been demonstrated that the inclusion of expert witnesses increases juries’ awareness of the variables that may influence how accurately eyewitness identifications are made (Cutler, Penrod, & Dexter, 1990).
Many jurisdictions have updated their legal guidelines and procedures in an effort to improve the veracity and accuracy of eyewitness accounts. For instance, the strict requirements for eyewitness identification in Australia and the UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Code D highlight the importance of following rigorous protocols to reduce errors. One of these procedures is the use of blind administration in line-ups, in which the line-up officer is blind to the identification of the suspect. By lowering the possibility of bias and inadvertent effect, this technique improves the identification process’s dependability. Reductions in incorrect identifications and convictions have been linked to the implementation of these strict guidelines (Wells et al., 1998).
Moreover, in order to guarantee compliance with best practices, these protocols frequently require extensive documentation and review procedures, which promotes increased accountability and dependability in the use of eyewitness testimony.
SUGGETION & CONCLUSION
A committee from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has offered a number of specific recommendations to increase the credibility of eyewitness testimony in court, taking into account the latest scientific knowledge of why eyewitnesses might make mistakes. The aforementioned recommendations are intended to tackle concerns that may impact eyewitnesses, such as uncertainty, bias, and overconfidence.
The NAS committee recommends highlighting any circumstances that may have contributed to these problems through pretrial judicial investigations and scientific expert testimony. This makes it possible to make sure the court is informed about any possible issues with the eyewitness’s memory. The NAS report also stresses that any identifications made by the eyewitness should be disclosed to the jury prior to the trial. This is due to the higher likelihood of accuracy associated with the eyewitness’s earlier statements of confidence. By adopting these principles, the clarity and reliability of eyewitness evidence can be improved. In court, eyewitness testimony is vital because it allows the accused to be identified. But it frequently lacks accuracy and can result in erroneous convictions. Due to the court’s heavy reliance on testimony provided under oath, faulty eyewitness reports may result in innocent persons being unfairly convicted. Cases where eyewitness testimony plays a major role increase the risk of mistakes and erroneous convictions. In contrast to DNA evidence and forensic science, which are typically more reliable, eyewitness testimonies are susceptible to the effects of trauma, fear, inattention, and memory loss. These problems have the potential to cause grave injustices, upend the judicial system, and lead to the unfair punishment of innocent people.
Due to its crucial position in the legal system and the possibility of mistakes that result in erroneous convictions, the validity of eyewitness evidence has come under close examination. A number of notable developments have been made in tackling these issues, including the Cognitive Interview, video recording of interviews, expert testimony on memory and perception, and updated legal standards and procedures. By using these techniques, the legal system can guarantee a more equitable and just legal process by improving the veracity and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. These developments provide protection against human memory and perception’s natural fallibility in addition to raising the caliber of evidence produced in court.
Bhumika Meena
Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur