Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
1
Research Paper: Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
Kristi Campbell
Liberty University
CJUS 640
July 21, 2025
Abstract
In a law enforcement investigation, eyewitness testimony is considered a valuable piece
of evidence. But during a trial this evidence can be extremely unreliable. It is very convincing for
a juror to have an eyewitness that testifies. Many jurors do not understand that eyewitness
testimony can be flawed, unreliable, and inaccurate. Eyewitness testimony can potentially lead
to a wrongful conviction so it would be beneficial for jurors to be educated about the pros and
cons of eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony can be affected when the eyewitness is looking at a
physical lineup of suspects. It can also be affected by an eyewitness when they are examining a
photo lineup of a suspect. Having someone, perhaps a psychologist as an expert witness, discuss
the concerns and unreliability of eyewitness testimony with the jury would be a step in the right
direction to attempt to decrease wrongful convictions based on inaccurate and unreliable
eyewitness testimony.
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
When an individual witnesses an event whether it is good or bad, the individual
becomes an eyewitness. Eyewitness testimony is an individual’s recollection of what they saw or
witnessed. Eyewitness testimony was first used in ancient times. During that time eyewitness
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
2
testimony was extremely important and considered credible. Over time advancements have
been made in forensic science and the use of eyewitness testimony has been proven to be
unreliable. While the use of eyewitness testimony can be a great piece of evidence it should not
be the only relevant evidence. An eyewitness’s testimony can be flawed and can be easily
discredited in the courtroom by the defense. But there remains a fascination with eyewitness
testimony, especially with jurors. According to Walker (2013) when eyewitness testimony is
presented in a trial the jury will pay special attention to it. Eyewitness testimony is still
considered to be a very powerful piece of evidence for a prosecutor. A credible eyewitness can
correctly identify a suspect from a police lineup, and this can eventually lead to a guilty
conviction within the courtroom or even a full acquittal of a suspect.
When a crime is committed, law enforcement will search for eyewitnesses while
gathering evidence. Sometimes eyewitnesses will come forward on their own and other times
law enforcement will reach out to them. Law enforcement will interview the eyewitness several
times throughout an investigation, looking for more evidence and testing the reliability of the
individual. Initially law enforcement will inquire about everything the eyewitness saw that
relates to the potential suspect and the crime. Often a sketch artist will be called in to work with
the eyewitness to create a sketch of the potential suspect. Sometimes the police may already
know who the suspect is or even already have them in custody. Law enforcement will then need
eyewitness testimony that puts the suspect at the scene, which can be accomplished by an
eyewitness identifying the suspect in a police lineup. If the case goes to court the eyewitness
will more than likely be asked or subpoenaed to identity the suspect to the jury during the trial.
While eyewitness testimony is extremely important for a case, having other relevant and
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
3
undisputable evidence is better for a case. This is because eyewitness testimony can be
unreliable and riddled with errors which can make or break a court case.
Eyewitness Testimony Reliability
Eyewitness testimony is often seen as being beneficial to a court case. But with
everything that has pros, eyewitness testimony can also have cons, and those concerns can be
rather troubling. The biggest concern with eyewitness testimony is the fact that it can be
unreliable. There are several factors which can play a part in the ability of a witness to be able to
accurately recall events which have occurred. In fact, there has been a lot of research and
literature which has focused specifically on the eyewitness testimony and its unreliability. When
a significant event is occurring an eyewitness may be subjected to various factors that can play a
part in their accounting of what occurred. This can include pressure to accurately remember
what they witnessed, stress, anxiety, and trauma. According to Costanzo and Krauss (2020) an
eyewitness can make mistakes and be wrong than is portrayed. Valles (2011) expanded on
eyewitness testimony reliability, finding that eyewitness testimony has been shown to be a
major player in wrongful convictions. Advancements in forensic testing have shown this to be
accurate. The memory of an individual is not as accurate as many might believe. According to
Mnookin (2015) the memory of an individual is not like a point and shoot camera according to
psychology experts who have conducted extensive research. Even if law enforcement has an
eyewitness, they still must have irrefutable evidence for a jury due to the concern with
eyewitness testimony reliability.
Another factor of eyewitness testimony that can affect its reliability is the mistaken
identity of a suspect. There have been numerous cases brought to court with the bulk of
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
4
evidence being that of eyewitness testimony. Since juries find eyewitness testimony to be
credible this has led to many cases of innocent individuals being incarcerated. Leverick (2016)
found that in several countries around the world including New Zealand, England, and Canada
that the use of eyewitness testimony and mistaken identity is the primary cause of wrongful
convictions. Mistaken identity can be caused by limited specific recognition of the suspect or
even pressure from law enforcement to positively identify a suspect during the police lineup
process. There has even been evidence of law enforcement officers leading the eyewitness
during the police lineup process. Trenary (2013) found that when a suspect stands out from the
others in a police lineup there can often be mistaken identification. A police lineup will consist
of a group of random individuals with the suspect added to the group which will test the
recollection of the eyewitness. According to Trenary (2013) an innocent person has a greater
likelihood of being identified from a police lineup when the lineup is biased. The eyewitness
may believe they chose the correct suspect when in fact they did not.
There have been numerous articles written about DNA exonerating individuals. One specific
article by Albright (2017) examined DNA exonerating individuals and found that 350 individuals
who were exonerated by DNA evidence had been serving prison sentences and 70% of the
individuals were convicted by only utilizing eyewitness testimony. That is a very concerning
statistic which requires attention. This also means that other potential leads were ignored, and
the actual perpetrators of the crimes were still free. According to Albright (2017) the public will
begin to not trust local law enforcement due to eyewitness misidentification.
Eventually in 1992 the Innocence Project was formed due to the concern that
eyewitness identification had resulted in 70% of wrongful convictions. According to the
Innocence Project (2023) their goal is to exonerate innocent individuals who have been
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
5
wrongfully convicted as well as establish preventative strategies. Since their formation, the
Innocence Project has received over 65,000 letters from incarcerated individuals. They have
exonerated over 250 individuals with over 200 of them being exonerated due to DNA evidence.
One of the most well-known recent cases of eyewitness misidentification is that of
Malcolm Alexander. Mr. Alexander’s case was examined by the Innocence Project initially in
1996 and worked on until 2013 when they were able to get hair from the crime scene DNA
tested. Mr. Alexander had spent 38 years in prison for a sexual assault he never committed, and
DNA evidence would eventually prove that. In November 1979 an African American man had
grabbed a white female business owner from behind and raped her at gun point. According to
the Innocence Project (2023) in February 1980 Mr. Alexander had a consensual sexual
encounter with a white woman who had approached him for money. This woman later accused
Mr. Alexander of sexual assault but the charges were eventually dropped. Police thought the
case was like the 1979 rape at gun point, so they included Mr. Alexander’s photo in a lineup in
June 1980 and had the victim review the police lineup hoping she would pick her attacker. The
victim chose
Mr. Alexander’s picture from the police lineup of photos. According to the Innocence Project
(2023) three days after the photo lineup the police conducted a physical lineup which only
consisted of one individual from the photo lineup, Mr. Alexander. The victim had stated that Mr.
Alexander was possibly the man who raped her after picking him out from the physical lineup.
When the female victim gave her statement, she changed and instead of using possibly she was
now confident that Mr. Alexander raped her even though it was from behind and she was
unable to see his face. During the trial the female victim testified that she had no doubts that
the man who raped her from being at gun point was Mr. Alexander. Mr. Alexander’s defense
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
6
attorney was incompetent and did not search for evidence that would proclaim the innocence
of his client. Mr. Alexander was convicted in November 1980 for sexual assault and sentenced to
life in prison without parole.
As I mentioned previously, in 1996 the Innocence Project took on Mr. Alexander’s case
and when they did, they found some alarming information. According to the Innocence Project
(2023) they discovered that the defense attorney was incompetent, and the police had
destroyed much of the DNA evidence that had been collected. In 2013 the Innocence Project
was able to get a couple pieces of hair evidence submitted for DNA testing and it was compared
to that of Mr. Alexander and there was no match. Eventually Mr. Alexander’s conviction was
vacated and in January 2018 he was exonerated. Mr. Alexander’s case is a prime example of
eyewitness misidentification and the fact that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable.
Memory Distortion
An individual’s memory can affect their eyewitness account of events. According to
Costanzo and Krauss (2020) memory works as a three-component process which includes
encoding, storage, and retrieval. For a memory to be successfully encoded and stored in the
brain it must complete the following process. Encoding involves the gathering of information
and the transformation of it into a format that gets stored in memory. The encoded information
will be held in the brain; this is called the process of storage. Later that stored information may
be accessed, this is the process of retrieval.
When an individual is experiencing an error in one of the three-component processes it
will lead to difficulties with their memory. There could be an error with the encoding process
which can include limited pieces of information encoded and some of the more pertinent pieces
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
7
of information not encoded and even a memory lapse. According to Costanzo and Krauss (2020)
over time a memory will begin to deteriorate. This results in recollection difficulties, especially a
full detail of a memory. There have been various studies on memory and recollection. Valentine
and Maras (2011) wanted to conduct research on eyewitness testimony, so they had individuals
watch a video and then examined their memory four weeks later. They found that their memory
was incredibly weak just a mere four weeks later.
Albright (2017) examined eyewitness memory and found that the system and estimator
variables can greatly impact the memory and ultimately the testimony of an eyewitness.
Distracting stimuli (bright lights, presence of noise, presence of a weapon) can have a negative
effect on the viewing conditions of estimator variables. The duration of the event, the distance
between the suspect and the event, and the lighting are all examples of viewing conditions and
any of these can cause an issue for eyewitness testimony and memory. The internal state of the
observer can also negatively impact the variable estimator. This can include the individual’s skill,
motivation, previous prejudices, or their ability to pay attention. System variables also can affect
eyewitness testimony. The way in which the police lineup is conducted, and setup is an example
of a system variable because it is controlled by the criminal justice system. According to Albright
(2017) other examples include the instructions that a witness is given during a police lineup and
if the individual giving the instructions knows if the actual suspect is participating in the police
lineup.
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
8
Enhancing Witness Testimony
Eyewitness testimony is important for all investigations, but it should not be the only
piece of evidence utilized in the courtroom. Since eyewitness testimony relies solely on an
individual’s memory there are various issues that can occur. As you have read regarding Mr.
Alexander, eyewitness testimony can be extremely unreliable, and innocent people can go to
prison for decades before DNA evidence has the potential to clear them. According to
Magnussen et al. (2010) by educating the jury and others within the judicial system of the
possible errors with eyewitness testimony there is a chance to reduce the impact of errors even
though the errors will never be eliminated. With more research on eyewitness testimony and its
unreliability there is a window for improvement.
There have been several suggestions issued to help improve the reliability of an
eyewitness and their testimony. Albright (2017) found that standard witness instructions and a
blinded administrator for police lineups are two such recommendations. If the police lineup
administrator is blinded, they will not be able to lead the witness nor will they be able to
influence the eyewitness’s choice. Standard witness instructions can assist in keeping the police
lineup consistent.
Witness instructions are extremely important for an investigation because they can
increase the chances of a successful identification of the suspect by the eyewitness. The
instructions can include something as simple as letting the eyewitness know that the suspect
may or may not be participating in the lineup. This can help with false identification or pressure
on the eyewitness to make a pick. Trenary (2013) examined how investigators put together a
police lineup and the type of individuals they add into the lineup and how they closely resemble
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
9
characteristics of the actual suspect. This makes it more difficult for the suspect to be so obvious
in the lineup when the eyewitness must make their pick.
Jury instructions have been implemented in various courts which indicate the potential
for eyewitness testimony to be unreliable. Leverick (2016) examined in detail jury instructions
and eyewitness testimony and its concerns. This is an excellent way to address eyewitness
testimony unreliability with jurors. Mnookin (2015) found that to reduce the frequency and
number of wrongful convictions, courts utilize expert psychological evidence. The use of expert
testimony is crucial for a court case. According to Vallas (2011) educating jurors regarding
eyewitness testimony and its lack of reliability as well as evaluating the testimony is a key
responsibility of expert testimony.
There is always that possibility that an eyewitness may make an error in identifying a
suspect. Jurors should pay attention to the level of confidence that an eyewitness exhibits
during testimony. According to Leverick (2016) jurors need to examine the eyewitness and their
testimony to determine the conditions that were present at the time of the identification of the
suspect as well as any weaknesses and strengths that may be present during their testimony. In
addition, jurors need to think about whether the victim or eyewitness was able to see the
suspect. Remember Mr. Alexander’s case, the female victim was attacked from behind and
never actually got a good look at the suspect yet during her testimony she had no doubts that
Mr. Alexander was her attacker. DNA evidence proved she was wrong. The burden of proof is on
the prosecutor and their evidence must be show the defendant was guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. It is important that this information be reminded of the jury so when they are examining
eyewitness testimony they can evaluate whether it met that standard.
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
10
Biblical Worldview
Eyewitness testimony is extremely important because it is the direct connection to an
event which has occurred. Scripture reminds us as Christians that we need to keep our faith.
This has me thinking about how Mr. Alexander must have felt in prison for 38 years doing time
for a crime he did not commit. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen” (ESV Bible Study, 2008, Hebrews 11:1). God reminds us to trust in Him and that
only He knows the plans He has for us. It is also important for anyone who is an eyewitness to
remember to be accurate, not to give into pressure, and always truthful. “You shall not spread a
false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness” (ESV Bible
Study, 2008, Exodus 23:1). False testimony has its consequences which include undermining
justice which can lead to significant harm as it creates conflicts and damages trust.
Conclusion
Eyewitness testimony is crucial to an investigation, especially that of a serious crime. But
it sometimes comes with a price because eyewitness testimony is known to be unreliable
because human beings can make errors and have faulty memories. We discussed the different
variables that can play a part in the accuracy and unreliability of an individual’s memory. It is
necessary that law enforcement understands that and knows how to properly address it with
their eyewitness. So many individuals have been wrongfully convicted due to unreliable
eyewitness testimony, Mr. Alexander being one of them. His story never changed, and he was
consistent in maintaining his innocence for the 38 years he spent behind bars before finally
being exonerated due to DNA evidence. While eyewitness testimony is considered an advantage
in a case, there should also be other relevant and reliable evidence.
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
11
Many recommendations were mentioned in this paper that would help improve the
reliability of an eyewitness and their testimony. This included informing the eyewitness that
police lineup may not include the suspect. This provides an opportunity for the victim or
eyewitness not to feel pressured to select an individual that they may be unsure of. After all
someone else’s life is essentially in their hands. Another recommendation that could potentially
improve the reliability of eyewitness testimony would be a blind administrator of the police
lineup. This means an individual who is unaware who the actual suspect is. This individual will
not be able to lead the witness, nor will they be able to influence the eyewitness’s choice. Lastly,
specific jury instructions, which include the fact that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable.
Eyewitness testimony will remain crucial but often unreliable unless some of these
recommendations are further enacted.
References
Albright, T. D. (2017). Why eyewitnesses fail. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 114(30), 7758-7764. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706891114
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2020). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied
to law (4th ed.). Worth Publishers.
ESV Study Bible. (2008). Crossway Books.
Innocence Project. (2023, May 18). Innocence project: Malcolm alexander.
https://innocenceproject.org/cases/malcolm-alexander/
Leverick, F. (2016). Jury instructions on eyewitness identification evidence: A reevaluation.
Creighton Law Review, 49(3), 555-587. http://hdl.handle.net/10504/87850
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
12
Magnussen, S., Melinder, A., Stridbeck, U., & Raja, A. Q. (2010). Beliefs about factors affecting
the reliability of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of judges, jurors and the general
public. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1550
Mnookin, J. L. (2015). Constructing Evidence and Educating Juries: The Case for Modular, Made-
In-Advance Expert Evidence About Eyewitness Identifications and False
Confessions. Texas Law Review, 93(7), 1811-1848.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/
scholarlyjournals/constructing-evidence-educating-juries-case/docview/1701576152/se-
2
Trenary, A. D. (2013). State v. Henderson: A model for admitting eyewitness identification
testimony. University of Colorado Law Review, 84(4), 1256-1303.
Valentine, T., & Maras, K. (2011). The effect of cross examination on the accuracy of adult ‐
eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 554–
561. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1768
Vallas, G. (2011). A Survey of Federal and State Standards for the Admission of Expert
Testimony on the Reliability of Eyewitnesses. American Journal of Criminal Law, 39(1),
97-146.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/
scholarly-journals/survey-federal-state-standards-admission-expert/docview/
963550052/ se-2
Walker, S. (2013). DRAWING ON DAUBERT: BRINGING RELIABILITY TO THE FOREFRONT IN THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION
Eyewitness Identification and Testimony
13
TESTIMONY. Emory Law Journal, 62(4), 1205-1242.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/
scholarlyjournals/drawing-on-daubert-bringing-reliability-forefront/docview/
1445174836/se-2
