Eye Witness Testimony

The human memory, while in many ways an amazing tool, is highly flawed. Although we have the power to remember a vast amount of information, our mind can use our memory to essentially “trick” us, sometimes even to the extent of remembering in detail events that never transpired. Despite these limitations, the testimony of eyewitnesses has become the most crucial evidence towards conviction in criminal cases (Loftus 9). In this way, our legal system depends on the reliability of an exceptionally faulty source. Jurors in court cases tend to believe eyewitnesses (Gorenststein 616). Faced with conflicting or ambiguous testimony, they are tempted to put their faith in people who actually “saw” an event. This faith in eyewitnesses maybe misplaced, however. Although eyewitness accounts are essential to courtroom testimony, studies clearly show people who say; “I know what I saw,” often mean, “I know what I think I saw.” And these people may be wrong (Migueles 259). Psychologists have attempted to measure the ability of witnesses to recall specific facts surrounding an emotional event, as in the article “Recall, Recognition, and Confidence Patterns in Eyewitness Testimony,” by

. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Migueles Garcia-Bajos, Buckhout Common, Gorenstein Ellsworth, Eyewitness Accounts, Expectancy Effect, Dorf Suggestive, Loftus Palmer, Robert Buckhout, Elvira Garcia-Bajos, stimulus information, eyewitness accounts, eyewitness testimony, events film, post-event information, desired outcome, information due, shown film, reported average speed, acquisition stage, stage involves, fast cars cars, study subjects shown, subjects shown film, stimulus information due,
Approximate Word count = 2173
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)