Eyewitness Testimony: Pros & Cons & Real Impact

Eyewitness testimony, a cornerstone of legal proceedings, hinges on the reliability of human memory; however, this memory is susceptible to distortion, thus creating both opportunities and challenges within the justice system. The Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to exonerating the wrongly convicted, has demonstrated how mistaken eyewitness identifications contribute to wrongful convictions, highlighting a significant con of this evidence. Cognitive psychology research, particularly studies on the misinformation effect, reveals how post-event information can alter an eyewitness’s recollection, further complicating the evaluation of eyewitness accounts. Despite these challenges, law enforcement often relies on eyewitness testimony to establish leads and build cases, emphasizing its potential to provide crucial initial information. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the pros and cons of eyewitness testimony is essential for legal professionals and jurors alike to accurately assess its validity and impact on trial outcomes.

The Perilous Power of the Eyewitness

Eyewitness testimony stands as a cornerstone of the legal system, frequently wielding decisive influence in courtrooms across the nation. Its perceived reliability often shapes verdicts and determines the course of justice.

However, this reliance comes with a significant caveat: human memory is far from infallible.

The Allure and the Illusion

Jurors and judges alike tend to place considerable weight on eyewitness accounts. The visceral nature of a firsthand narrative, coupled with the apparent confidence of the witness, can be incredibly persuasive.

This reliance stems from a deeply ingrained belief in the accuracy of our own perceptions and recollections. We assume that what we see is what truly happened, and that our memories serve as faithful recordings of past events.

Unfortunately, psychological research has consistently demonstrated that this assumption is flawed.

Unveiling the Fallibility

Memories are not static snapshots but rather dynamic reconstructions. They are susceptible to distortion, influenced by a multitude of factors ranging from the passage of time to the introduction of external information.

Stress, trauma, and even subtle cues during police questioning can alter the way memories are encoded and retrieved. This inherent fallibility raises profound concerns about the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness testimony.

The Stakes of Imperfect Recall

The stakes are undeniably high. Misidentification by an eyewitness can lead to wrongful convictions, tearing apart lives and undermining the very foundations of justice. The human cost of such errors is immeasurable, leaving innocent individuals to languish behind bars while the true perpetrators remain free.

A Call for Scrutiny and Reform

Despite its persuasive power, eyewitness testimony is inherently fallible. It is susceptible to a range of psychological and procedural influences. These influences lead to wrongful convictions and necessitate reforms within the legal system.

A more nuanced understanding of the limitations of memory, coupled with the implementation of safeguards to minimize bias in identification procedures, is essential. Only through such vigilance can we hope to mitigate the perilous power of the eyewitness and ensure a more just and equitable legal system.

The Mind’s Eye: How Memory Plays Tricks

Eyewitness testimony stands as a cornerstone of the legal system, frequently wielding decisive influence in courtrooms across the nation. Its perceived reliability often shapes verdicts and determines the course of justice. However, this reliance comes with a significant caveat: human memory is far from infallible. Instead, it is a reconstructive process, susceptible to a multitude of influences that can distort our recollections of events. Understanding these psychological pitfalls is crucial to appreciating the limitations of eyewitness accounts.

The Reconstructive Nature of Memory

Memory is not a video recording, faithfully capturing every detail of an event. Rather, it is a dynamic and malleable process of reconstruction.

When we recall an event, we piece together fragments of information, filling in gaps with inferences and assumptions.

This means our memories are not perfect copies of the past, but rather interpretations that can be easily altered.

Schemas and Prior Knowledge

Our schemas, mental frameworks based on past experiences, significantly shape how we encode and recall information. These schemas can lead us to unconsciously fill in missing details with information that is consistent with our expectations, even if it wasn’t actually present.

Prior knowledge and beliefs also play a crucial role, influencing how we interpret and remember events.

For example, someone with a strong bias against a particular group may be more likely to misremember details that confirm their pre-existing prejudices.

The Misinformation Effect: Planting False Memories

One of the most well-documented phenomena in memory research is the misinformation effect.

This occurs when post-event information distorts or alters our memories of the original event.

Elizabeth Loftus and Her Groundbreaking Research

Pioneering research by Elizabeth Loftus has demonstrated the profound impact of the misinformation effect.

In her studies, participants who were exposed to misleading information after witnessing an event often incorporated that information into their memories, even when it contradicted what they had actually seen.

Leading Questions and Suggestive Comments

Leading questions and suggestive comments can subtly influence our memories, leading to the creation of false or distorted recollections.

For instance, asking "How fast was the car going when it smashed into the other car?" is more likely to elicit a higher speed estimate than asking "How fast was the car going when it hit the other car?".

This seemingly minor difference in wording can significantly alter an eyewitness’s perception of the event.

Weapon Focus: Distorting Perception Under Stress

In crimes involving weapons, eyewitnesses often experience the weapon focus effect. This refers to the tendency for eyewitnesses to focus their attention on the weapon itself, at the expense of other details of the event.

This heightened focus on the weapon impairs their ability to accurately recall other important information, such as the perpetrator’s face, clothing, or surrounding circumstances.

The implications for identifying perpetrators in crimes involving weapons are significant, as eyewitnesses may struggle to provide reliable descriptions or identifications.

Source Monitoring Error: Confusing Reality and Imagination

Source monitoring error refers to the difficulty in remembering the source of information. This can lead to misattributions, where we mistakenly attribute a memory to the wrong source.

For example, an eyewitness might confuse information they learned from a news report with their own memory of the crime scene.

This confusion can result in inaccurate and unreliable eyewitness testimony.

The Power of Suggestibility

Suggestibility refers to the extent to which eyewitnesses are susceptible to incorporating misleading information into their memories.

Eyewitnesses can be highly susceptible to incorporating misleading information, particularly when exposed to suggestive questioning or biased sources.

Factors such as age, stress, and individual differences can influence an individual’s suggestibility. Children and individuals experiencing high levels of stress are generally more susceptible to suggestion.

Cognitive Biases: Distorting Our Judgments

Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. These biases can influence how we perceive, interpret, and remember events.

Confirmation Bias

One particularly relevant bias is confirmation bias, the tendency to favor information that confirms pre-existing beliefs.

For example, if an eyewitness initially suspects a particular individual, they may unconsciously focus on evidence that supports their suspicion while downplaying or ignoring contradictory information.

Stress and Trauma: Fragmenting Memories

Stress and trauma can significantly impact memory encoding and retrieval. Heightened stress levels can lead to fragmented or distorted memories, making it difficult for eyewitnesses to accurately recall events.

The body’s stress response can interfere with the encoding process, leading to incomplete or inaccurate memories.

Furthermore, trauma can cause memories to be repressed or altered, making them even more unreliable.

Facial Recognition: An Imperfect Science

Facial recognition is the cognitive process of identifying faces.

While we often assume that facial recognition is a reliable skill, it is subject to a variety of errors.

Factors such as lighting, distance, disguise, and the race of the perpetrator can all influence our ability to accurately recognize faces.

Cross-racial identification, in particular, has been shown to be less accurate than same-race identification.

Confidence vs. Accuracy: A Dangerous Disconnect

It is crucial to understand that there is often a weak correlation between confidence and accuracy in eyewitness accounts.

An eyewitness who expresses high confidence in their identification may not necessarily be more accurate than an eyewitness who expresses less certainty.

The danger lies in juries overvaluing confident eyewitnesses, even when their memories are inaccurate.

This can lead to wrongful convictions based on compelling, yet ultimately unreliable, testimony.

Lineup Limbo: How Law Enforcement Procedures Can Skew Identification

Following the labyrinthine pathways of memory, we arrive at another critical juncture where the pursuit of justice can be imperiled: law enforcement procedures. Even if an eyewitness’s memory were a perfect recording (which, as we’ve established, it isn’t), the way in which that memory is elicited and tested can introduce bias, leading to misidentification and wrongful convictions. This section delves into how seemingly innocuous police practices, particularly lineups, can inadvertently skew eyewitness identification, and underscores the importance of adopting unbiased methods.

Police Lineups (or Showups): The Traditional Approach

Traditional police lineups, or showups, involve presenting a suspect alongside a group of fillers (individuals known to be innocent) to the eyewitness. The eyewitness is then asked to identify the perpetrator from this group.

While seemingly straightforward, this method is fraught with potential for bias. The way the lineup is conducted, the instructions given to the eyewitness, and even subtle cues from the officer administering the lineup can inadvertently influence the witness’s choice.

Showups, where a single suspect is presented to the witness, are particularly problematic, as they inherently suggest that the police believe the person presented is the perpetrator.

The Case for Double-Blind Lineups

One of the most effective reforms to mitigate bias is the implementation of double-blind lineups. In this procedure, the administrator conducting the lineup is unaware of the suspect’s identity.

This simple change eliminates the possibility of the administrator unintentionally providing cues or suggestions to the eyewitness, whether through body language, tone of voice, or subtle prompting.

By removing this source of bias, double-blind lineups significantly reduce the risk of suggestive influence and enhance the reliability of eyewitness identification.

Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups: A Matter of Comparison

Another critical consideration is the format of the lineup itself. Traditional lineups often present all lineup members simultaneously, allowing the eyewitness to make a relative judgment, comparing the individuals and selecting the one who most closely resembles their memory of the perpetrator.

However, research suggests that sequential lineups, in which lineup members are presented one at a time, are more accurate.

This forces the eyewitness to make an absolute judgment, comparing each individual to their memory of the perpetrator, rather than simply choosing the "best fit" from the available options. Sequential lineups reduce the likelihood of false identifications, particularly when the actual perpetrator is not present in the lineup.

Filler Selection: Avoiding Unintentional Cues

The selection of fillers in a lineup is just as crucial as the lineup procedure itself. Fillers should be chosen carefully to avoid unduly standing out or resembling the suspect.

If the fillers are significantly different in appearance from the suspect, the eyewitness may be more likely to choose the suspect, even if their memory is uncertain.

Ideally, fillers should match the general description provided by the eyewitness and share similar characteristics with the suspect to avoid unintentional cues.

The Importance of Neutral Instructions

The instructions given to the eyewitness before viewing the lineup can also significantly impact the outcome. It is crucial that these instructions are neutral and do not imply that the suspect is definitely present in the lineup.

Eyewitnesses should be explicitly told that the perpetrator may or may not be present and that they are not obligated to make an identification.

Failure to provide such instructions can create pressure on the eyewitness to choose someone, even if they are unsure, increasing the risk of misidentification.

Photo Arrays: An Alternative Approach

Photo arrays, which involve presenting a series of photographs to the eyewitness instead of a live lineup, offer a practical alternative in many situations.

Photo arrays can be easier to administer and less resource-intensive than live lineups. However, the same principles of fairness and unbiased procedures apply.

Photo arrays should be constructed carefully, with fillers chosen to match the general description of the suspect, and administered using a double-blind procedure whenever possible.

Composite Sketches: A Tool with Limitations

Composite sketches, created based on an eyewitness’s description of the perpetrator, can be a valuable tool in investigations. However, it is essential to recognize their limitations.

Composite sketches are often based on imperfect memories and can be influenced by suggestion and bias. They should be used cautiously and not relied upon as definitive proof of identity.

Body Cameras: Enhancing Transparency and Accountability

The use of body cameras by law enforcement officers offers a significant opportunity to improve transparency and accountability in eyewitness identification procedures.

Recording police interactions with witnesses and suspects can provide an objective record of the lineup process, helping to identify potential instances of bias or suggestion.

Body camera footage can also be used to verify that proper procedures were followed and that the eyewitness was not subjected to undue pressure.

Wrongful Conviction: The Human Cost of Mistaken Identity

Following the labyrinthine pathways of memory, we arrive at another critical juncture where the pursuit of justice can be imperiled: the human cost of mistaken identity. Eyewitness misidentification stands as a stark reminder of the profound fallibility inherent in our legal system. It is here, in the shattered lives and lost years of the wrongly convicted, that the abstract concepts of memory distortion and procedural bias take on a devastatingly human form.

This section delves into the harrowing reality of wrongful convictions stemming from flawed eyewitness testimony. We will examine specific cases, explore the critical role of organizations like The Innocence Project, and consider scholarly research that illuminates the scope and impact of this pervasive problem.

The Devastating Reality: Cases of Mistaken Identity

The annals of legal history are replete with cases where individuals have been wrongly convicted based, at least in part, on inaccurate eyewitness accounts. These cases serve as cautionary tales, underscoring the dire consequences of placing undue weight on human memory.

Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson: A Tragic Example

Perhaps one of the most well-known and poignant examples is the case of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson. Jennifer Thompson identified Ronald Cotton as her rapist. Despite Cotton’s repeated claims of innocence, he was convicted and sentenced to prison.

Years later, DNA evidence exonerated Cotton and identified the actual perpetrator. This case vividly illustrates the potential for devastating misidentification and its lasting impact on both the wrongly accused and the victim.

Beyond Cotton: A Wider Pattern of Injustice

The Cotton case is, tragically, not an isolated incident. Numerous other individuals have suffered similar fates, spending years or even decades behind bars for crimes they did not commit. These cases highlight the systemic issues within the criminal justice system that contribute to wrongful convictions.

The consequences for the wrongly convicted are incalculable, ranging from the loss of freedom and livelihood to the irreparable damage to their reputations and relationships. The emotional toll on these individuals and their families is immense.

The Innocence Project: Fighting for Exoneration

Organizations such as The Innocence Project play a vital role in rectifying these injustices. The Innocence Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to exonerating wrongly convicted individuals through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustices.

Using DNA to Overturn Wrongful Convictions

A key function of The Innocence Project is their use of DNA evidence to re-examine cases where individuals may have been wrongly convicted. In numerous instances, DNA testing has provided conclusive proof of innocence, leading to the release of wrongly convicted individuals.

Addressing Systemic Issues

Beyond exonerating the wrongly convicted, The Innocence Project also works to address the systemic issues that contribute to wrongful convictions. This includes advocating for reforms in eyewitness identification procedures, forensic science practices, and legal representation.

Their efforts are critical in preventing future miscarriages of justice and ensuring a more fair and accurate legal system.

The Scholarship of Brandon Garrett

Brandon Garrett, a renowned legal scholar, has dedicated his career to studying wrongful convictions and the factors that contribute to them. His research has shed light on the role of forensic science and eyewitness testimony in wrongful convictions, providing valuable insights into the causes and potential solutions to this pervasive problem.

Uncovering the Roots of Wrongful Conviction

Garrett’s work has highlighted the prevalence of flawed forensic science and unreliable eyewitness testimony in wrongful conviction cases. His research underscores the need for greater scrutiny of forensic evidence and more reliable eyewitness identification procedures.

Informing Policy and Practice

Garrett’s scholarship has influenced policy and practice in the criminal justice system. His research has informed legal reforms aimed at improving the accuracy and reliability of forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony.

His work is a testament to the power of rigorous research in promoting justice and preventing future wrongful convictions. His efforts highlight the critical role of DNA exonerations.

Justice on Trial: Legal and Ethical Obligations

Following the labyrinthine pathways of memory, we arrive at another critical juncture where the pursuit of justice can be imperiled: the human cost of mistaken identity. Eyewitness misidentification stands as a stark reminder of the profound fallibility inherent in our legal system. It is here, within the courtroom, that the abstract principles of law must confront the messy realities of human perception and recollection.

Due Process and the Right to a Fair Trial

At the heart of our legal system lies the concept of due process, ensuring every individual receives a fundamentally fair trial. This right is enshrined in the Constitution and demands that legal proceedings are conducted with fairness and impartiality.

When eyewitness testimony is presented, its reliability must be rigorously scrutinized against legal standards. Courts must diligently balance the need to present this evidence with the very real risk of wrongful convictions that can arise from its inherent flaws. The stakes are incredibly high: a person’s liberty hangs in the balance.

The justice system has a profound obligation to safeguard against unreliable evidence that might prejudice a jury. Failure to do so undermines the very foundation of due process, eroding public trust in the legal system.

Presumption of Innocence: Protecting the Accused

The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of justice, asserting that every accused individual is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle is crucial because it shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution, requiring them to demonstrate guilt rather than the defendant having to prove their innocence.

However, the persuasive power of eyewitness testimony can easily overshadow this presumption. Biased or unreliable accounts have the potential to sway jurors, leading them to convict based on flawed evidence. When a witness confidently points a finger, jurors may find it difficult to maintain the impartiality required by law.

The impact of unreliable testimony is particularly damaging, as it can irreparably taint the jury’s perception and undermine the defendant’s right to a fair hearing. It is imperative, therefore, that the legal system diligently protects against such instances.

Jury Instructions: Guiding the Deliberation

Jury instructions serve as vital guideposts, directing jurors on how to evaluate evidence and apply the law. When eyewitness testimony is central to a case, specific cautions must be provided to juries regarding its limitations.

Jurors should be explicitly informed about the factors that can affect the reliability of eyewitness accounts. These factors include the witness’s distance from the event, lighting conditions, stress levels, and the potential for memory distortion.

Without adequate instruction, jurors may overestimate the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, placing undue weight on its persuasive power. Clear and comprehensive instructions are therefore essential to ensuring informed and impartial jury deliberations.

Admissibility of Evidence: Setting the Threshold

The admissibility of evidence is governed by a complex set of rules designed to ensure that only reliable and relevant information is presented in court. When it comes to eyewitness testimony, these rules play a crucial role in determining whether a witness’s account can be considered by the jury.

Courts must carefully weigh the potential for prejudice against the probative value of the testimony. If the circumstances surrounding the identification are unduly suggestive or the witness’s memory appears compromised, the evidence may be deemed inadmissible.

Excluding unreliable or tainted eyewitness evidence is crucial for protecting the integrity of the legal process and preventing wrongful convictions.

Cross-Examination: Challenging the Narrative

Cross-examination is a cornerstone of the adversarial legal system, providing an opportunity to challenge the reliability and credibility of witnesses. Through skillful questioning, defense attorneys can expose inconsistencies, biases, and limitations in eyewitness accounts.

Attorneys can probe into the witness’s perception of the event, exploring factors that might have influenced their memory. They can also highlight discrepancies between the witness’s initial statements and their testimony in court.

Effective cross-examination is essential for unveiling the truth and ensuring that jurors are fully aware of the potential pitfalls of relying solely on eyewitness identification.

Expert Witness Testimony: Illuminating the Science of Memory

The science of memory and perception is complex, often beyond the understanding of laypersons. Expert witnesses, particularly psychologists, can play a crucial role in educating juries about these intricacies.

Psychologists like Brian Cutler have dedicated their careers to studying the factors that affect eyewitness memory. Their testimony can shed light on the fallibility of human recollection and the potential for memory distortion.

Expert testimony helps jurors understand the limitations of eyewitness accounts, enabling them to make more informed decisions about the reliability of the evidence presented.

Exoneration: Rectifying Injustice

Exoneration represents the ultimate vindication for those wrongly convicted, officially absolving them of blame or guilt. It is a testament to the possibility of correcting past injustices, though the path to exoneration is often long and arduous.

The steps involved in obtaining exoneration typically include presenting new evidence that casts doubt on the original conviction. This evidence may include DNA analysis, witness recantations, or revelations of police misconduct.

Exoneration is not merely a legal process; it is a moral imperative. It signifies a commitment to upholding justice and ensuring that the innocent are freed from wrongful imprisonment.

Probable Cause: A Precarious Foundation

Probable cause is the standard required for law enforcement to obtain warrants and make arrests. It requires a reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that a crime has been committed. However, biased or unreliable eyewitness testimony can easily undermine this standard.

If an eyewitness provides a false or inaccurate account, it can lead to the issuance of unwarranted warrants and the wrongful arrest of innocent individuals. The consequences of relying on such testimony can be devastating, both for the accused and for the integrity of the justice system.

It is therefore essential that law enforcement officers carefully scrutinize eyewitness accounts before relying on them to establish probable cause.

The American Psychological Association (APA): A Resource for Best Practices

The American Psychological Association (APA) plays a vital role in promoting sound scientific practices in the field of psychology, including research on eyewitness testimony. The APA provides resources and guidelines for conducting research, evaluating evidence, and disseminating findings.

By promoting best practices in the gathering and evaluation of eyewitness evidence, the APA contributes to a more informed and reliable legal system. Its work helps to ensure that justice is served based on sound scientific principles.

The National Academy of Sciences: Shaping Policy and Practice

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a prestigious organization that provides independent, objective advice on matters of science and technology. In the context of eyewitness testimony, the NAS has published influential reports that have shaped policy and practice.

These reports offer recommendations for improving eyewitness identification procedures, reducing the risk of misidentification, and educating judges and juries about the science of memory. The NAS’s findings have had a profound impact on the legal landscape, leading to reforms aimed at ensuring greater accuracy and fairness in the use of eyewitness evidence.

Eyewitness Errors in the Real World: Implications for Different Crimes

Following the labyrinthine pathways of memory, we arrive at another critical juncture where the pursuit of justice can be imperiled: the human cost of mistaken identity. Eyewitness misidentification stands as a stark reminder of the profound fallibility inherent in our legal system. It is here, within the diverse landscape of criminal activities, that the implications of these errors become startlingly clear.

The reliability of eyewitness testimony, already compromised by psychological and procedural vulnerabilities, faces unique challenges when applied to different types of crimes. The stakes are particularly high, demanding a nuanced understanding of how various factors can influence the accuracy of identification in each scenario.

The Specific Challenges of Sexual Assault Cases

In sexual assault cases, eyewitness identification takes on an added layer of complexity, fraught with emotional and psychological intricacies. The circumstances surrounding these incidents often lead to fragmented or distorted memories, significantly impacting the reliability of victim testimony.

Trauma’s Impact on Memory: The experience of sexual assault is inherently traumatic, and trauma can profoundly affect the way memories are encoded and retrieved. Victims may experience heightened stress, fear, and anxiety, all of which can disrupt cognitive processes and impair memory formation.

Studies have shown that traumatic events can lead to flashbulb memories, which are vivid and detailed recollections of the event. However, these memories are not necessarily accurate.

They can be subject to distortions and gaps, particularly concerning peripheral details or the perpetrator’s appearance.

The weapon focus effect, often observed in eyewitness testimony, can be exacerbated in sexual assault cases where the perpetrator uses a weapon or other means of coercion. The victim’s attention may become narrowly focused on the threat, diminishing their ability to accurately recall other details about the assailant.

Emotional Influences and Suggestibility: Emotional factors can further complicate the process of eyewitness identification. Victims of sexual assault may experience feelings of shame, guilt, or self-blame, which can influence their perception of the event and their ability to recall specific details.

Suggestibility is also a concern, as victims may be particularly vulnerable to leading questions or suggestive comments from law enforcement or other individuals.

The legal system must approach eyewitness testimony in sexual assault cases with extreme caution, implementing procedures designed to minimize the risk of misidentification. Trauma-informed interviewing techniques, blind lineups, and expert testimony on the effects of trauma on memory are crucial for ensuring a fair and just outcome.

Eyewitness Testimony in All Criminal Cases

While sexual assault cases present unique challenges, the risk of eyewitness misidentification extends to virtually any crime where a witness is present. From robbery and assault to burglary and fraud, the potential for error looms large, threatening the integrity of the justice system.

The Pervasive Nature of Misidentification: The fallibility of human memory, coupled with the potential for procedural bias, makes eyewitness misidentification a significant concern across all types of criminal cases. Even in seemingly straightforward situations, factors such as lighting, distance, and the witness’s emotional state can affect the accuracy of their observations.

Moreover, the stress and confusion often associated with criminal events can further impair memory and increase the likelihood of errors. Witnesses may misremember details, misattribute actions, or even identify the wrong person as the perpetrator.

The Need for Vigilance: Given the inherent risks, it is imperative that law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges approach eyewitness testimony with caution and scrutiny. Standardized procedures for conducting lineups and interviews, along with robust safeguards against bias, are essential for minimizing the risk of misidentification.

Furthermore, juries must be properly instructed on the limitations of eyewitness testimony and the factors that can influence its accuracy.

Expert testimony on the psychology of memory and perception can provide valuable insights into the potential sources of error.

By acknowledging the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and implementing appropriate safeguards, we can strive to ensure that justice is served fairly and accurately in all criminal cases.

So, there you have it. Eyewitness testimony: pros and cons, a real mixed bag, right? While it can be incredibly powerful in pointing investigators in the right direction and potentially securing a conviction, we’ve also seen how easily it can be swayed by suggestion or stress, leading to devastating miscarriages of justice. It’s a crucial piece of the puzzle, just one that needs to be handled with extreme care and a healthy dose of skepticism.