Elizabeth Loftus, a law professor at University of California at Irvine, said of the Zimmerman case, "There was so much media coverage that it could be that the new information that Trayvon Martin had died, that he was unarmed, the new information about the outcry and outrage, had the potential for contaminating and distorting the witnesses' memory."
Although the eyewitnesses' earlier accounts of that fateful night — descriptions that were generally less damning of Zimmerman — might be closer to the truth, they aren't what the jury will hear during the trial.
On the witness stand
According to Clifford Fishman, a law professor at the Catholic University of America, a jury tends to accept as accurate the version of events a witness describes when testifying — "even if that version is inconsistent in many significant ways with that witness's earlier statements." In other words, legally, the later versions of memories reign supreme. The burden falls to the defense attorneys to point out the weaknesses or inconsistencies in the witness's testimony at trial, and to cast doubt in the minds of the jurors about the accuracy of the witness's descriptions. [What is Reasonable Doubt?]
The prosecutors can retaliate by disputing the witness's earlier accounts; to do this, they might demonstrate that the police had initially asked leading questions or otherwise influenced the witnesses' statements in a way that made them more sympathetic of Zimmerman. In that case, the witnesses' later descriptions could be proved more trustworthy.
Furthermore, it could be that later additions to accounts, as with the witness who initially did not know whether she had seen Zimmerman or Martin on top during their fight, but later named Zimmerman, it could be that her fuller memory really had been triggered by seeing Zimmerman on television. "Appropriate cues given afterwards can retrieve additional reliable information that was not originally retrieved," Tversky noted.
Either way, Loftus said, "It looks like these witnesses are going to have some explaining to do. If they use version two of their stories in court, one attorney or the other is going have access to version one. And that can make the case against Zimmerman weaker."
Follow Natalie Wolchover on Twitter @nattyover. Follow Life's Little Mysteries on Twitter @llmysteries, then join us on Facebook.
- 6 Fun Ways to Sharpen Your Memory
- History's Most Notorious and Elusive Bad Guys
- Can Bad Memories Be Erased?
Copyright 2012 Lifes Little Mysteries, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ]]>
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add Comment"Which raises the question: How reliable are eyewitnesses?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would this, rather than any other case, raise this question? It's old, it's answered, and it's not news.
Ask any cop - no, they're not.
Studies have shown that the more details involved the less reliable the eyewitnesses account of the scene and vice versa. Humans will also use available information to make decisions. Car salesman know this. They only tell you what will help you make the decision to buy the car. Good attorneys know this too. Defense attorneys will ask questions that indirectly provide details so an eyewitnesses testimony will be inconsistent and thus less reliable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you see the Rodney King beating video. Indisputable evidence of law enforcement using unnecessary force, yet an attorney was able to convince jurors they didn't see what they watched happen on the video.
It's all so known that the victims them selves can get it wrong. Yet the victims testimony is considered important in convicting the accused.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote that at least one of the cases of "eyewitness recanting" actually is not!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second witness said she couldn't tell who was on top, but, then, after seeing the two men, whose sizes were significantly different, she knew who was on top.
That doesn't mean here memory has changed!
That means that she still rememebers if it was the heavier set person on top on or not and that, now, after she knows Zimmercan was the chunkier individual, she knows it was hm!
This is an artificial "argument" intended to attack the credibility of wyewitnewsses!
And, because it is partently illegitimate, yet being passed off as such in a supposedly reputable "science" magazine to give ti "legitimacy" it doesn't deserve, that is proof eyewitness testimony is valid and there is a conspiracy among those in power to eliminate reliance on it!
The first portion of this article seems to be exactly the same as I have seen in other articles discussing the witness testimony. If you cut and paste shouldn't you have an attribution for the material?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI noticed partially because of the same error in the same words, "Later, the witness wasn't sure any punches were thrown or that he had heard distress calls." This witness actually said it was too dark to see whose mouth was open to match to the screams, not that there were no screams.
Memory isn't the only factor here, the witnesses are responding to questions in this latest round from prosecution investigators. Without knowing what those questions were, how they were framed, it is a mistake to put much weight in the literal reply, which could mean other than in does in context with the specific question and related questions.
I once had to subdue a violent fellow by conking him out with a flashlight. The police charged him with a few offenses and he was released on bail. His time in front of a judge came up a few weeks later. I was relieved when he didn't show because I had been asked to appear and identify him. I couldn't remember what he looked like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, too weird. I'm usually good with faces but in the heat of the moment and ever the aftermath, my brain was in some other mode.
Been there myself. Had to ID a person on a moped who knocked a kid over. It took a good minute before I was sure I was looking at the same guy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease sign and share this petition to have Casey Anthony tried by the federal government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDouble jeopardy is subject to what is known as the "dual sovereignty" doctrine. This doctrine states that a person can be tried for the same crime twice, if he is being tried by more than one distinct, sovereign government. This means that a person can be tried by the federal government and by a state government for the same crime. Both entities are distinctly sovereign units that have their own sets of laws and their power derived from different sets of people.
The petition address the DOJ policy that guides them in deciding whether or not to bring federal charges against someone after a person has already been tried by a state.
http://www.change.org/petitions/lanny-a-breuer-assistant-attorney-general-criminal-division-try-casey-anthony-in-federal-court-for-the-murder-of-her-daughter
Aside from eyewitnesses being generally unreliable, in this particular case anyone who offered testimony that may be favorable to Zimmerman would be under overwhelming social pressure to retract or revise it. Because this case has been framed by the media as being racially motivated, anyone who helps the white guy is going to be suspected of being a racist, even if they're black.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what happens to justice when the racial hucksters get involved. The crime is no longer judged on the basis of the objective evidence, but on its racial implications. The perception is that if Zimmerman is acquitted, it will be bad for blacks (and may start civil disturbances), and if he is convicted it will be a great day for civil rights.
This is not the way the criminal justice system should be and it would not be happening in a race-neutral and color-blind society, which is not what racial hucksters want.