Testimony In Criminal Cases

Introduction

Witness testimony in general is applicable in instances where the  participant can give evidence about the goings on of the case under consideration. Witness testimony is essential in any criminal court case so as to ascertain whether a suspect is in fact guilty of a certain crime. Certain pre-requisites exist for handling witness testimony because not all testimonies may be valid evidence for the case under examination. The essay shall examine some of these characteristics, also, there will be an explanation of some of the psychological factors affecting witness testimony and factors that can impede administration of justice using this methodology.

Eye witness testimony

Eye witnesses are usually those individuals who have the ability of identify the defendant or the suspect of a crime. Certain aspects are critical in determining whether a given eye witness is necessarily telling the truth. For instance, jurors usually look for aspects such as the opportunity that the said witness had to actually witness the crime. Consequently, when criminal lawyers consider using eye witness testimony in their arguments, they must ensure that the said individual actually had a chance of seeing the crime in action. ( Sussman, 2002)

Besides the latter criminal lawyers must also ensure that their witnesses have accurate memory.  In this regard, witnesses must appear credible enough. This means that witnesses need to remember intricate details about the scene of the crime, the criminal, victim and any other issues surrounding the case. In close relation to this is the reasonableness of the testimony. At the end of the day, an eye witness needs to explain something that actually makes sense. If there is no logical flow of events or thoughts, then such a witness may be invalid. This means that whatever the witness says must be consistent. Actually, this is the point where most eye witnesses can either make or break a criminal lawyer’s case. Once an eye witness tries to testify against a suspect and contradicts himself or herself, then the jury may disregard any information given by the individuals.

Furthermore, jurors and judges alike normally examine the motives behind an eye witness testimony. Certain instances may arise where the eye witness stands to gain something by testifying in the court of law. This is usually judged by their relationship with the suspect or victim. In other circumstances, the eye witness may be trying to defend himself/herself. In line with this, eye witnesses usually give away their intentions or their credibility by the way they conduct themselves in the court room. Issues such as body language, eye contact, irritability etc can enable jurors to determine whether the witness is actually telling the truth.

Key issues affecting individual’ testimony

Certain issues can adversely the nature of a witness’ testimony. For instance, sometimes, the eye witness gives  testimony that was based on a time when the witness was not in their right mental state. For instance, when the witness was in a high stress situation such as in a burning building, than chances are that that eye witness may not give accurate results. It is therefore necessary to check the level of stress which a witness had at the time when the crime was being committed. (Lindsay et al, 2003)

Psychological aspects required for testimony

Every criminal case requires validation of whether the defendant committed the crime. However, there are numerous factors that come into play when trying to identify culprits. A simple exercise of just how serious this is can be conducted; say someone walks into one’s house, picks up a his telephone while threatening the person with a gun. When the victim is asked to pick out that culprit in a line up, it is possible to make mistakes because the crime took place in a fraction of second,  the victim was under high stress and the person who did it was a stranger.

Psychologists usually summarize the factors that can affect eye witnesses into four distinct categories. These include;

Perception is instrumental in criminal cases because one cannot be able to remember something that they did not perceive. As social beings, humans tend to seek acceptance in whatever they do. In this case, eye witnesses would want to appear rational, calm and collected. Consequently, some witnesses may end up pointing out someone out of a line up because that person closely resembles the criminal but is not really the criminal. In that regard, the eye-witness is trying to show officers, lawyers or other judicial representatives that he/she is reliable and consistent. (Lee, Duke & Pager, 2007)

Eye witness perceptions are largely affected by their biases and attitudes towards the accused or other parties affected by the crime. Normally, when an eye witness cannot remember a particular aspect about the crime, then they are likely to create an explanation to suit their memory gap. This explanation is usually based upon that individuals’ expectation. For instance, if they expected that a certain man who had broken their car’s side mirror would go ahead and break the next car in the car park, then witnesses may usually falsify evidence. In the latter case, one might not have witnessed the occurrence of  both crimes  but because they expected it to happen, then they might claim it is so in the court room.

Memory is another crucial factor in cases where witness testimony is relevant. In this case, one must put in mind the fact that the human mind has the ability to sieve out unwanted data. When one convinces themselves that an action did not take place because it was too horrendous, then one’s memory can simply wipe it out. In other circumstances, an eye witness may be give hints or suggestions about certain occurrences. In such cases, psychologists assert that witnesses can subconsciously convince themselves that something actually happened even when it did not. Numerous factors come into play that can affect the credibility of an eye witness’ testimony. For instance, if a witness discussed the case with another witness, then they can pre-condition their mind to incorporate the new discussion that occurred after the crime. Also, police officers may reinforce the perception that a certain suspect is in fact the criminal before an eye witness can identify that person. By doing this, police officers usually make eye witnesses inclined to their suggestions. Such witnesses may desist from claiming that they cannot remember and even convince themselves that they actually saw that respective criminal committing the crime.  Memory can also be messed up when the amount of time between the eye witness’ testimony and the occurrence of the crime is huge. This usually occurs because the brain has a tendency to weed out certain issues with the passage of time. Normally, when an event is very important to the witness, then they might recall it very sharply. However, the finer details of the crime may fade away with time. It is crucial to remember these facts as one examines a witness. Cases of mistaken identity usually occur when a certain event has been merged with another usually as result of the passage of time. Sometimes, some incidences may be so similar that the respective eye witness merges details from one event into another and this severely misleads the court. (Rahn & Love, 2007)

Communication is also crucial in eye witness testimony. Certain individuals may not have the ability to synchronize their thoughts with their words. Usually, this may occur as a result of language barriers or one’s personality. In such cases, a witness may be trying to describe an image of a person but they lack the words to give a clear picture of what this person really looks like. This may be genuine and if lawyers are trying to use an eye witness as part of their defense, then they need to ascertain that they have laid out all the issues that need to be resolved.

The issue of candor is also crucial to testimonies given by eye witnesses. This usually means that a candidate had mistakenly identified another individual and this is normally done unintentionally. Usually, such witnesses are competent individuals who simply made an error in judgment. Usually, lawyers use this aspect to invalidate their opponents case. However, this is a risky approach because sometimes some witnesses may not accept that they made a mistake in identification. This usually makes a lawyer’s opponents seem even more valid.

Landmark cases and statutes

Psychological factors have been instrumental in a number of court proceedings. For instance, in the case of Frye vs United States, 1013, 293 [dc 1923] there were instances whether they had to establish whether the said eye witness was actually relevant and reliable. In the case, the defendant used expert testimony to attest to the eye witness’ capability of recounting the crime. Through this case, judges gained the responsibility of determining whether certain eye witnesses could be reliable in court proceedings.

In the case of Duabert vs Merril Pharmaceuticals 509 US [1993], there were four major rules laid out with regard to testing a witness’ testimony

1)                  Feasibility of theory used to test the witness

2)                  Whether an expert assessing the witness belongs to a peer reviewed profession

3)                  Potential rate of error

4)                  General acceptance of methods used in testing the eye witness

The latter were called the Daubert rules and can thus be used to reinforce/nullify whether a witness is actually capable of testifying. (Higgins & Skinner, 2003)

In the case of the US vs Wade UIS 388 218 [1967} it was held that post indictment is essential in line ups held before trials. This case was instrumental in establishing the Wade Gilbert rules. The latter rules are essential in criminal proceedings today because they determine the nature of police conduct in these line ups. During the act, it was held that police officers must always notify counsel before holding the line up and witnesses ought to conduct the identification in the presence of a lawyer. This means that when witnesses are required to do a line up without their lawyers, then the respective officer responsible will have denied the accused a chance to exercise Fourteenth and Sixth amendment rights. Consequently, when evidence is to be presented by witnesses who identified the causes in such circumstances, then defense attorneys can challenge the admissibility of that evidence. The latter case places greater emphasis on protection of defendants in the US court criminal justice system.

Photographic identifications also have their own rules as laid out in the case of US vs Ash US 413 300 [1973). In that case, it was established that the presence of defense counsel was not necessary in such scenarios. The presiding judge asserted that there was in fact little need for a defense counsel because the eye witness did not have to confront the defendant and his/her presence was not necessary physically. This caused the popularity of photographic displays in comparison to line ups. Many officers tend to use this method because there are few legal implications associated with it. For instance, defense counsels need not be present. ( Sussman, 2002)

In the cases of Allen vs Estelle 568 F 1108 [1978] and Neil vs Biggers US 409 188 [1972], it was held that eye witness identification conducted outside the court could be regarded as admissible pieces of evidence if they had not been corrupted. In these cases, even when the evidence obtained out of court was done un-procedurally, it can still be used in the court of law. However, this decision was challenged in the case of Manson vs Braithwaite where the judge held that when evidence had been obtained through an extremely undue process such that it could cause mistaken identity, then that evidence should be disregarded in the court of law. This decision was made based on the fourteenth amendment law which protects the rights of the accused once the accused.

Conclusion

The reliability of using eye witnesses in criminal cases can be challenged due to a number of reasons. These reasons have been laid out in numerous cases as mentioned above. However, they can be summarize as follows; the witness’ opportunity to record/witness the crime accurately, the witness’ accuracy of the defendants’ crime, the witness’ certainty level  and time that elapses between the trial and the crime.

Reference

Higgins & Skinner (2003): Establishing the Relevance of Expert Testimony on Eyewitness Identification:  Northern Kentucky Law Review, 30, 4, 471

Lee, Duke & Pager (2007): Conversational Versus Eyewitness Testimony in Criminal Convictions; American Criminal Law Review;  44, 1, 1

Rahn & Love (2007): What Went Wrong? Eyewitness Misidentification and Memory; The Advocate Review, 29, 1, 34

Lindsay, Dysart, Fulero & Steblay (2003); Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Police Lineup and Showup Presentations; Law and Human Behavior Review, 27, 34, 523

Sussman, K. (2002): Lineup Procedures and the Abdication of Judicial Responsibility for Improving the Criminal Justice System; New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 27, 4, 10-12

About the Author

Pharmaceutical Attorney