# data[].attributes.body
Given the empirical evidence present and the case study examined, it is clear that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, whether this be because of investigative issues, cognitive biases, or other memory-altering factors. When considering how much courts rely on eyewitness testimony and the likelihood of its inaccuracy, it casts doubt upon the validity and ethicality of the Criminal Justice System, especially when a fair portion of inaccuracy can come from their investigation procedures. Television and film often neglect the issues with eyewitness testimony because they do not fit the narratives they aim to depict for the sake of entertainment. One way the impact of inaccurate eyewitness testimony could be lessened is by informing jurors that, despite the emotional persuasiveness of the testimony, they should take all evidence into equal consideration and realize that confidence does not equate to accuracy. Investigative techniques, particularly in terms of interviews and assailant identification, should be updated to better consider the power of suggestion and the pressure put on eyewitnesses. The Criminal Justice System has a lot of work to do to make better use of eyewitness testimony.

# data[].attributes.headline
Discrepancies Between Media and the Case

# data[].attributes.subject
Discrepancies Between Media and the Case

# data[].attributes.body
The inaccuracies of eyewitness testimony are not often shown on television programming that depicts the Criminal Justice System. Eyewitness testimony is an emotionally impactful moment in the courtroom, which is frequently noted throughout Jennifer Thompson’s interview, and is portrayed as such if not more so in media (60 Minutes, 2009).  Often, eyewitnesses, victims in particular, will be seen telling their stories with the utmost confidence, as they could not possibly mistake the person who traumatized them in the manner that they did. In turn, the jury will deliberate for some time, before returning and delivering a guilty verdict. When a common scene such as this one is dissected, what first can be noted is the victim’s conviction during their testimony. What many people may believe is that this assurance can only be seen when someone is telling the truth, meaning what they are saying is accurate. However, as Munday (1995) and Loftus (2019) explain, confidence is not necessarily indicative of the accuracy of an eyewitness’ testimony. Loftus puts it best when stating “to be cautious, one should not take high confidence as any absolute guarantee of anything,” (Loftus, 1979, as cited in Loftus, 2019). As seen in Thompson’s case, despite how sure she was that Ronald Cotton was her rapist, she ended up being incorrect. Even though high confidence does not translate to high accuracy, jurors are often unaware of this, meaning the way they respond to confident and emotional eyewitness testimony in real life tends to be similar to how they react on television. This is, taking the victim’s statements as fact and ultimately deciding to convict the defendant, heavily based on the testimony they heard. During the first trial for Ronald Cotton, jurors only took 40 minutes to deliberate before finding him guilty, testifying to how powerful Thompson’s inaccurate testimony was (60 Minutes, 2009). Of course, while victims in television are rarely if ever shown to be wrong during their testimonies, it is evident that they can be for a multitude of reasons, as seen in the misidentification of Ronald Cotton. Scenarios in which innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit due to aforementioned inaccurate testimony are not typically shown on television either, which, in reality, seems to happen alarmingly often. When examining depictions of pre-trial investigation in media, there are usually two ways of moving the plot along when it comes to lineups; the eyewitness picks another individual present who is not the suspect, setting investigators back to square one, or they pick the truly guilty suspect. In Thompson’s case, she did identify the suspect when presented with a photo and physical lineup, however, he was not truly guilty (60 Minutes, 2009). These discrepancies are overlooked in the media because they make the Criminal Justice System look bad. When people watch these shows, they are meant to root for the members of law enforcement and even envision themselves in their places. By showing just how often mistakes are made, part of the sexy mystique is taken away from the careers that are glorified in these programs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Miscellaneous Factors that Impact Memory

# data[].attributes.subject
Miscellaneous Factors that Impact Memory

# data[].attributes.body
Various factors impact one’s memory and the accuracy of their eyewitness testimony throughout the investigation and court process. In Jennifer Thompson’s case, she spent too long examining the photos given to her during the photo lineup, taking multiple minutes to analyze the details of each man’s face (60 Minutes, 2009). If she was basing her identification on her memory of her rapist alone, she would have been able to recognize him in about 15 seconds if his face was pictured in the lineup. Another component in the accuracy of eyewitness testimony is the time between witnessing the crime and delivering testimony. As time passes, once prominent memories become more difficult to remember the exact details of. For example, it is common that the memories of events that were once significant fade and one may struggle to remember information about them. While the experience of a crime is more defining and traumatic, a similar loss of detail occurs. The study done by Lipton (1977) showed that testimonies given after a one-week delay were 4.3% less accurate than testimonies given immediately after witnessing a filmed murder. This is important to recognize because certain victims may not report their crimes immediately. For instance, victims of gang violence, sexual abuse, or any other violent crime may fear that if they go to the authorities, they will be putting themselves or their loved ones in danger, choosing to report their crime days, weeks, or even months after it occurs. Others may not even be aware that they were a victim of a crime, only being able to make a report once they realize what happened to them.

# data[].attributes.body
Although Thompson was told that her rapist could be one or none of the men pictured in front of her, it has been seen that witnesses often go about these identification processes like how they would a multiple-choice test (60 Minutes, 2009). This means it is difficult for them to recognize when the true culprit is not present at all (Wells & Olson, 2003). According to Wells and Olson (2003), one study showed that when the culprit was present, 54% of participants correctly chose the culprit while 21% were unable to make an identification. When the culprit was removed from the lineup, 32% chose not to make an identification while the remaining 68% identified the wrong man. During lineups, even if it is established that the assailant may not be present, eyewitnesses often feel pressured to make a choice, similar to how Jennifer Thompson did. Another issue with the lineup process is that when presented with a group of photographs or physical people to choose from, witnesses tend to compare those present in the lineup to see who most resembles the image in their minds (Wells & Olson, 2003). This means that even if the culprit is not in the lineup, eyewitnesses are likely to choose who out of the group looks most like the attacker they remember, rather than just comparing the individuals in the lineup to their memory. Of course, this then poses a great issue if the eyewitness chooses the innocent suspect, thinking that they appear the most similar compared to the others next to them. In a study conducted by Lipton (1977), it was found that leading questions that imply incorrect information resulted in a 52% rate of accuracy while neutral questions resulted in an 83% of accuracy. Overall, structured interview methods that involved questions, either open-ended, leading, or multiple-choice obtained the least accurate statements, with an 83%, 72%, and 56% rate of accuracy, respectively. Unstructured interviews in which participants were allowed to recall what they had witnessed without any questions to guide them resulted in a 91% rate of information accuracy. It may not always be practical to rely strictly on unstructured interviews during criminal cases, as there may be important details eyewitnesses neglect to think about unless prompted. However, the best practice may be to ask eyewitnesses for an initial unstructured interview before asking open-ended questions.

# data[].attributes.body
Cognitive bias is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “the way a particular person understands events, facts, and other people, which is based on their own particular set of beliefs and experiences and may not be reasonable or accurate,” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). Multiple different types of cognitive biases may impact eyewitness testimony, such as the cross-race effect, the misinformation effect, and confirmation bias. Although Wells and Olson (2003) do not explicitly label what they describe as the “cross-race effect”, the idea that people are better at identifying the faces of their own racial and ethnic groups coincides with the theory. It is clear to see how cross-race bias may have affected Jennifer Thompson’s misidentification of Ronald Cotton. Ronald Cotton and her true rapist, Bobby Poole, were already two similar-looking men (60 Minutes, 2009). The fact that Thompson was white while her attacker was black could have added to the difficulty she faced when asked if her rapist was in the photo lineup she was presented with. Szpitalak and Polczyk (2019) describe the misinformation effect as an occurrence in which inaccurate information derived from a source other than the actual event itself ends up being included in the recount of said event. In other words, the misinformation effect occurs, for instance, when the witness of a car accident sees that the light at the intersection was green when the accident occurred, but is later led to confidently believe they saw a red light when misinformed by another source (Loftus, 2019). Confirmation bias, which occurs when an individual seeks out or mainly focuses on information that supports pre-existing beliefs, can be seen when Jennifer Thompson was told by an investigator that she had picked the same man from both the photo lineup and physical lineup (60 Minutes, 2009). This led Thompson to feel as if she had made the correct decision when choosing Cotton, thus causing his face to appear in her recollections of her attack, even in her dreams. The strong emotions that coincided with this belief also engrained the notion that Cotton was her rapist into her memory. This would further explain why Thompson did not recognize Bobby Poole as the man who assaulted her, even when facing him in court. She simply had no emotional reaction to his presence.

# data[].attributes.body
In an interview done by the television program 60 Minutes, Jennifer Thompson, a rape victim, Ronald Cotton, the man she identified as her attacker, and multiple others participate in an interview about her case of misidentification (60 Minutes, 2009). When Jennifer Thompson was raped, she made sure to commit every detail of her attacker’s appearance to memory. When she reported her case, she gave all the details she could remember to investigators for them to create a composite drawing of her rapist. This drawing was released to the public and someone notified the police that a man named Ronald Cotton, who had a criminal record, fit the description. Authorities then presented Thompson with a photo lineup of six individuals who had similar traits to her attacker, Ronald Cotton being the man she identified as her attacker. When Cotton was brought in for questioning, confusing the day of the crime with a different weekend, he provided a false alibi which landed him in jail. Thompson once again identified Cotton during a physical lineup. Based on these identifications and two minor pieces of physical evidence, Cotton was convicted for the rape of Jennifer Thompson. During his time in prison, he encountered a man named Bobby Poole who he was frequently mistaken for. Poole had admitted to other prisoners that he raped Jennifer Thompson, as well as another woman who was assaulted the same night. During a new trial, Poole was present in the courtroom, however, Thompson was still certain that Ronald Cotton was her rapist, thus resulting in his reconviction. Seven years after this trial, it was found that DNA from Thompson’s rape kit did not match Cotton’s and was proven to be Bobby Poole’s, proving Cotton’s innocence and leading to his release from prison.

# data[].attributes.body
Eyewitness testimony is a recount in which a witness or victim of a crime details what they saw occur. This type of testimony is often used whenever available, but it is most heavily relied on in cases that do not have any forensic evidence, particularly DNA. While statements are given to investigators during the investigation of a crime, eyewitness testimony refers to the information provided by witnesses during trial. While all of those involved in the courtroom play a role in what is made of eyewitness testimony, the most important people when it comes to this form of evidence are the eyewitnesses, the investigators, and the jury members who decide the fate of the case. When considering that eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate for a multitude of reasons, it brings doubt to the validity and ethicality of the Criminal Justice System. According to the Innocence Project, 69% of national DNA exonerations - reversals of criminal convictions - involved eyewitness misidentification (“How eyewitness misidentification”, 2020). Additionally, there have been 450 non-DNA-based exonerations that also involved eyewitness misidentification (“How eyewitness misidentification”, 2020). Seeing how many cases based on eyewitness testimony eventually ended in exonerations sheds an unflattering light on the CJS. Although eyewitness testimony is perceived as crucial to criminal trials, it is often inaccurate due to cognitive bias, improper investigative methods, and other miscellaneous factors that affect memory, ultimately leading to the miscarriage of justice.