Editing Witness (section)

==Reliability==
Although eyewitness testimony is often assumed to be more reliable than [[circumstantial evidence]], studies have established that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed.<ref>{{Cite web |title=APA PsycNet |url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1979-13408-001 |access-date=2022-11-05 |website=psycnet.apa.org |language=en}}</ref> Mistaken [[eyewitness identification]] may result from such factors as faulty observation and recollection, or bias, or may involve a witness's knowingly giving false testimony. If several people witness a crime, it is possible to look for commonalities in their testimony, which are more likely to represent events as they occurred, although differences are to be expected and don't of themselves indicate dishonesty. Witness identification will help investigators get an idea of what a criminal suspect looks like, but eyewitness recollection include mistaken or misleading elements.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ebbesen |first1=Ebbe B. |last2=Rienick |first2=Cynthia B. |title=Retention interval and eyewitness memory for events and personal identifying attributes. |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |date=1998 |volume=83 |issue=5 |pages=745–762 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.745|pmid=9806014 }}</ref>

One study involved an experiment, in which subjects acted as [[juror]]s in a criminal case. Jurors heard a description of a robbery-murder, a prosecution argument, and then an argument for the defense. Some jurors heard only [[circumstantial evidence]]; others heard from a clerk who claimed to identify the defendant. In the former case, 18% percent found the defendant guilty, but in the latter case, 72% found the defendant guilty (Loftus 1988).<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Loftus |first1=Belinda |last2=Coppock |first2=Christopher |date=1988 |title=Bridging the Gulf |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25557277 |journal=Circa |issue=38 |pages=25–28 |doi=10.2307/25557277 |jstor=25557277 |issn=0263-9475}}</ref>

[[Police lineup]]s in which the eyewitness picks out a suspect from a group of people in the police station are often grossly suggestive, and they give the false impression that the witness remembered the suspect. In another study, students watched a staged crime. An hour later they looked through photos. A week later they were asked to pick the suspect out of lineups. 8% of the people in the lineups were mistakenly identified as criminals. 20% of the innocent people whose photographs were included were mistakenly identified.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=February 1977 |title=University of Nebraska Center for Great Plains Studies |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2052546.1977.11908818 |journal=Plains Anthropologist |volume=22 |issue=75 |pages=50 |doi=10.1080/2052546.1977.11908818 |issn=0032-0447}}</ref>

[[Weapon focus]] effects in which the presence of a weapon impairs [[memory]] for surrounding details is also an issue.

Another study looked at 65 cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In 45% of the cases, eyewitness mistakes were responsible.<ref name="borchard">[https://archive.org/stream/convictinginnoce00borcrich/convictinginnoce00borcrich_djvu.txt Convicting the Innocent: Sixty-Five Actual Errors of Criminal Justice] by Borchard, pg 367</ref>

The formal study of eyewitness memory is usually undertaken within the broader category of [[cognition|cognitive processes]], the different ways in which we make sense of the world around us. That is done by employing the mental skills at one's disposal like thinking, perception, memory, awareness, reasoning, and judgment. Although cognitive processes can be only inferred and cannot be seen directly, they all have very important practical implications within a legal context.

If one were to accept that the way people think, perceive, reason, and judge is not always perfect, it becomes easier to understand why cognitive processes and the factors influencing the processes are studied by psychologists in matters of law, one being the grave implications that this imperfection can have within the criminal justice system.

The study of witness memory has dominated the realm of investigation. As Huff and Rattner<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=160583|title=NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service|website=www.ncjrs.gov|language=en|access-date=2018-04-16}}</ref> note, the single most important factor contributing to wrongful conviction is eyewitness misidentification.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Huff |first1=C. Ronald |last2=Rattner |first2=Arye |last3=Sagarin |first3=Edward |last4=MacNamara |first4=Donal E. J. |title=Guilty Until Proved Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy |journal=Crime & Delinquency |date=5 September 2016 |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=518–544 |doi=10.1177/0011128786032004007|s2cid=145281693 }}</ref>