Suppose that you have been called as an expert witness for a defendant accused of robbing a bank.Prior to your being called as a witness,two bank tellers confidently identified the defendant as the robber.What research evidence might you introduce to the jury to caution them about assuming that the defendant must be guilty because he or she was identified in court?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is Answers will vary.A full-credit answer should mention at least two of the following points.
--Research examining the phenomenon of flashbulb memories has shown that people's initial and later recollections of events often differ dramatically.This should serve as a caution against automatically accepting them as evidence,and it challenges the conventional belief that certain memories are impervious to forgetting or other memory errors.
--Post-event information,such as questions asked by the police,may become part of one's memory for the event.Therefore,what one recalls and what one actually saw are two different events.People can be led astray in their recall of information by suggestive questioning.Researchers have documented several instances of false implanted memories that seemed to be plausible memories to the person.
--Research involving people who were exonerated by DNA evidence points to errors in eyewitness identification as one important factor in the individual's being found guilty of a crime.Juries often believe eyewitness identification and are unaware that eyewitness confidence is,at best,a weak indicator of eyewitness accuracy.
--Eyewitness testimony can be far from accurate when optimal conditions aren't met,which include errors introduced through a variety of factors such as communication with other witnesses,different race victims and perpetrators,brief glimpses,viewing crime under stressful conditions,mistaken sightings,weapon focus,etc.

Suppose That You Have Been Called as an Expert Witness