Eyewitness Testimony or Physical Evidence Which Should You Believe
In some trials you may hear about physical evidence, and hear from eyewitnesses from the crime. While Physical evidence is evidence that is collected from the scene of the crime, or found on a victim. Physical evidence can be scientifically tested, and sometimes compared against a suspect. Witness testimony primarily relies on that witness's memory, and hopefully their attention of detail. If you are a jury member how can you determine which evidence is the most reliable? Both forms of evidence have their own set of pro’s and con’s.
Witness testimony and can have some pros, unfortunately the cons prevail. I remember many years ago watching a TV show. I cannot recall if …show more content…
The test scenario was in a setting like a classroom. There was a speaker in the front giving a lecture, then someone ran in the room, stole an object off the podium and ran out.They then asked some of the people in the audience to describe what they saw, and to give a physical description of the person. Many of the people saw different things; from different shirt or hair color; to even different races. While some of the percipients recalled every fine detail, or the person, to what what was stolen. Other people were asked to look at a photo lineup of suspects. But they asked some of the percipients 2 different types of questions. Is the person that you saw here, or which one of the people here did you see? The people that were asked the first question didn’t always find the suspect. Meanwhile the persons that were asked the later of the two questions, always picked a suspect, while not always the same one. A study done by psychologists included the following: First, memory is a reconstructive process; thus, once it is altered by a suggestive identification procedure, it is unlikely that the eyewitness's original memory can be restored. So just by changing a few words in a question, who or …show more content…
While most people think that all crimes are solved with DNA now, that is not the case.Some cases have very little physical evidence, while some have a lot, that may be circumstantial or even highly relevant. The defence team may have an expert that can call into question how, or why, the evidence is not valid. While most scientific tests are conducted the same. one missed dot on an I, can question the whole
In some trials you may hear about physical evidence, and hear from eyewitnesses from the crime. While Physical evidence is evidence that is collected from the scene of the crime, or found on a victim. Physical evidence can be scientifically tested, and sometimes compared against a suspect. Witness testimony primarily relies on that witness's memory, and hopefully their attention of detail. If you are a jury member how can you determine which evidence is the most reliable? Both forms of evidence have their own set of pro’s and con’s.
Witness testimony and can have some pros, unfortunately the cons prevail. I remember many years ago watching a TV show. I cannot recall if …show more content…
The test scenario was in a setting like a classroom. There was a speaker in the front giving a lecture, then someone ran in the room, stole an object off the podium and ran out.They then asked some of the people in the audience to describe what they saw, and to give a physical description of the person. Many of the people saw different things; from different shirt or hair color; to even different races. While some of the percipients recalled every fine detail, or the person, to what what was stolen. Other people were asked to look at a photo lineup of suspects. But they asked some of the percipients 2 different types of questions. Is the person that you saw here, or which one of the people here did you see? The people that were asked the first question didn’t always find the suspect. Meanwhile the persons that were asked the later of the two questions, always picked a suspect, while not always the same one. A study done by psychologists included the following: First, memory is a reconstructive process; thus, once it is altered by a suggestive identification procedure, it is unlikely that the eyewitness's original memory can be restored. So just by changing a few words in a question, who or …show more content…
While most people think that all crimes are solved with DNA now, that is not the case.Some cases have very little physical evidence, while some have a lot, that may be circumstantial or even highly relevant. The defence team may have an expert that can call into question how, or why, the evidence is not valid. While most scientific tests are conducted the same. one missed dot on an I, can question the whole