Ronald Cotton Eyewitness Testimony

Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), 60 Minutes put out an interview piece about Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton and attempted to show how eyewitness testimony is flawed. Thompson was the victim and survivor of a rape and Cotton was the accused. Cotton served nearly 11 years before his exoneration, the eyewitness conviction deemed flawed. However, not flawed eyewitness testimony only convicted Cotton but the power of suggestion, finger pointing, and some unconscientious persuasion as well.

In season one episode six of the Serial podcast titled “The Case Against Adnan Syed”, there are many inconsistencies and false memories as the story is unfolding through the interviews made by the police and Koenig. During interviews, the majority of the answers received from witnesses did not add up or make sense. Also, individuals involved with the case claim they either did not recall what transpired or said something completely different from their previous statement.

First, the factor that leading innocent people be charged is flawed eyewitness identification. Eyewitness is one of principal evidences that policies are looking because someone has knowledge about the crime. A study of contributing causes of wrongful convictions show us that 72% are eyewitness because of misidentification ( The causes of wrongful conviction, 1). This study demonstrated that eyewitness is the highest in wrongful convictions. For example, in the documentary Mr Stephens was the eyewitness which, it is the strong evidence that Detective Williams used against Butler. Mr Stephens told the police that he saw a 6-feet tall men between 20 to 25 years-old. Even though the description given by Mr Stephens did not match with

This book is about a women named Jennifer Thompson-Cannino and a man named Ronald Cotton. In July of 1984, Jennifer Cannino who was twenty-two at the time, was raped at knifepoint in her Elon University apartment. She managed to get away and after some time, identify her attacker as Ronald Cotton. In the courts Cotton time and time again reiterated that Thompson-Cannino was mistaken in her serious accusations against him but because she was so positive that she was successful in identifying him as her attacker, police decided this was enough evidence to put Cotton behind bars. After close to eleven years in prison, Cotton was granted with the ability to take a DNA test that ended up proving his innocence. After more than a decade of wrongful

It is evident that eyewitness identification cannot always be trusted. Under times of distress, you may not have a clear observation of the suspect. DNA evidence has now been another factor in finding evidence in

Many news stories, reports, and books fairly describe wrongful convictions in detail, although not all of these wrongful convictions resulted in formal exonerations. Most witness misidentifications were made in good faith with the witness attempting to help officials find the real perpetrator of a crime, although this explanation does not examine the conditions under which these identifications were made. Some of the conditions that need to be taken into account are whether a photo was shown to a victim by the police before a lineup, whether the identification by the witness was hesitant, or if the victim was urged to be positive when testifying. Additionally, was the identification from the same race; was there prejudice, how much distance and duration of interaction was there between victim and suspect prior to identification and what were the viewing conditions; darkness or day light? With so many factors involved, it should be obvious to some why eye-witness misidentification can happen so frequently. Moreover, the testimony of an eyewitness relies on how accurate their memory of an event actually is. Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide (“Eyewitness Misidentification,”

It is unlikely that social consequences of false memories can be avoided. Elizabeth Loftus was intrigued to study false memories, and is perhaps personally responsible for subsequent developments throughout the history of false memories. Some of this history addresses various theories aimed at isolating how or why false memories occur. These include Source Monitoring Framework, Activation Monitoring Theory, Fuzzy Trace Theory, and strategies for persuasion which can lead to the development of false memory. Such persuasion leads to the present discussion concerning how persuasion in the judicial system has created false confessions and wrongful eyewitness testimonies, due to the Misinformation Effect. Additionally, Recovered Memory Therapy psychotherapy, a method used to reclaim lost memories, reveals itself as problematic where false memories are concerned.

Why have more than two-thousand people exonerated for crimes they didn’t commit? Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S. Memory can be influenced by anxiety, stress, reconstructive memory and other factors possibly affecting the testimony of the eyewitness and in turn, misleading the jury. I think that when subjects witness a crime they will struggle to remember important details of the event, and their recollection could be easily altered. This is because the reconstructive memory can be influenced by factors such as stress, anxiety, and verbal cues.

Context: Senior of Woodlawn High School, Adnan Syed, was convicted and charged with the first-degree murder of his ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee. Not only is Adnan’s alibi inconclusive, but he also fails to recall any specific details or occurrences of January 13, 1999. His acquaintance, Jay Wilds, has served as the State’s key witness against Adnan.

At that precise moment, I know for a fact that I will tell the truth because that is my character and what I believe in. Nonetheless, a sudden fear crosses my mind; the doubt that I will not remember what I witnessed frightens me. Although it has never happened before, at every new trial, I am troubled about the thought that I will not recall exactly what happened during the situation that brought me to trial. Moreover, I believe that the offender that is on trial can easily withhold the truth about their part in the situation. As police officers, we have body cameras that record what we say and what we do during our course of duty; therefore, to see an offender falsely state what happened, sickens me. We swear to God to tell the truth and to not do just that is not appropriate.

The criminal justice system depends majorly on eyewitness identification for investigating and prosecuting crimes. Psychologists have been the only ones who have warned the justice system of problems with eyewitness identification evidence. Recent DNA exoneration cases have corrupted the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest factor contributing to the conviction of many innocent people eyewitness testimonies are not reliable therefor you would assume they would be taken out of court, but instead

Through her own traumatizing personal experiences, Jennifer Thompson has the profound experience to advocate against the strength of eyewitness testimony. As found in her case, the eyewitness testimony that she gave against Ronald Cotton, the accused rapist, was most likely the piece of evidence that put him behind bars. Thompson was a college student with a 4.0 GPA who studied the face of her attacker in order to identify him to the police. She prepared for the identification. She was the perfect eyewitness. Years later through DNA testing, it was confirmed that Ronald Cotton was innocent and Bobby Poole was the man who committed the crime. How could Thompson, the perfect witness, be so wrong? The argument that Thompson is trying to make through

Furthermore, there can be several factors at play when a wrongful conviction occurs and each case is unique. Three of the more common and detrimental factors that will be explored in this essay are eyewitness error, the use of jailhouse informants and professional and institutional misconduct. Firstly, eyewitness testimony can be a major contributor to a conviction and is an important factor in wrongful conviction (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p. 227). Witness recall and, frankly, the human emory are not as reliable as previously thought. In fact there has been much research showing the problems with eyewitness testimony such as suggestive police interviewing, unconscious transference, and malleability of confidence (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p.227). All of these components lead to eyewitness error and essentially false incrimination. Secondly, another factor that can contribute to wrongful conviction is the use of jailhouse informants. Campbell & Denov (2016), describe jailhouse informants as prisoner informants that “provide information to law enforcement officials in exchange for money, property, or the promise of leniency in sentencing” (p. 229). This can be problematic because jurors place value on the

Some of the most important research related to memories and cognitive psychology is about Eye Witness Testimony (EWT). EWT is a legal term used in courtrooms, by police and other authorities. EWT refers to when someone witnesses an illegal act for example a robbery, a rape, or a situation that could be lead to further investigation. EWT is still crucial in discovering someone’s guilt or innocence in court, despite the fact that much research has proved that one cannot entirely rely on one’s memory.

Eye witness identification involves selecting an accused perpetrator from a police line up, sketch or being at the crime scene during the murder time. After selecting a suspect, witnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID of the suspect (s) or other surrounding details which the eyewitness can testify in court. Eyewitnesses are always required to testify in court but eyewitnesses with psychological disorders, substance dependancy are at a higher chance of identifying the wrong suspect therefore wrongfully assisting convict the perpetrator in the wrong  (Hal Arkowitz,  Scott O. Lilienfeld,  January 1, 2010).