Trial Judge Credibility

“Tell the truth.” Everyone has heard that countless times before. Since we were young we have been taught that telling anything but the honest truth is never acceptable; however, lying has appeared to play a massive part in society. It has effects in people’s daily lives such as teenagers taking a parent’s car and saying they went to the car wash when really it was taken for a joy ride, all the way back to ancient times where the Greeks lied about the Trojan horse being a gift when really it was just a cover for an attack. It is acceptable for lying to occur among today 's society due to its ability to preserve dignity, provide safety, and protect important relationships.

They have told you the true story of what happened that fateful night on June 17, 2016. Their testimonies show you that the defendant was not helpless and that she had many opportunities to leave her husband. In addition, their testimonies showed you that the defendant knowingly and premeditatedly murdered her unconscious husband. Unlike the defense, the prosecution and its witnesses have no gain by lying to

False witnesses have been a problem for as long as humans have been around, from the Salem Witch Trials to the Mccarthyism times. False witnesses mess with people's lives and are a nuisance to the judicial system. They can turn a guilty verdict to a not guilty, or vise versa. It is an issue we have in the world and is something that has to be dealt with and correct to make our court system fair to the people of this world. False witnesses are not good, they are a problem is around, and they can be stopped.

Over the past few decades, hundreds of people have been falsely imprisoned. Many of their cases were founded on the account of one or more eyewitnesses. The criminal justice system often relies on eyewitness accounts to piece together a crime and identify the perpetrator. But studies showing the faultiness of our memories, particularly in stressful events, suggest that witnesses may not be as reliable of a source as we think.

Her earliest studies of eyewitness testimony addressed several issues: when someone sees a crime or accident, how accurate is his or her memory? These studies led Loftus to ask what happens when witness are questioned by police officers, and what if those questions are suggestive (Loftus, 2003). For instance, when Loftus began showing people films of traffic accidents, she found that a question such as “How fast were the cars going when the smashed into each other?” led to higher estimates of speed than a more neutral question that used the verb “hit”. Moreover, the “smashed” question led more people to falsely remember seeing broken glass when there was none. Her early papers concluded that leading questions could contaminate or distort a witness’s memory (Loftus,

The criminal justice system faces multiple accusations for not standing up to the “innocent until proven guilty” standards. While the legal system has fought to keep this statement true, the challenges still exist. One of these is a proper trial that is both unbiased and without error. The setting for a proper trial includes an impartial jury selection to follow the proper procedures of the courtroom. Selection of the jury is an important task and serving on a jury is considered by the United States as the civic duty of the community.

When it comes to hearing or speaking the truth do you believe it can help you or destroy you ? The author , Reginald Rose , he is showing me that when it comes to a trial it 's the truth that matters, however, not everyone will feel the same some care about the truth and some don 't. The people who are not truthful are the ones who don 't care about anything or anyone. Therefore, During the trial, they discuss what had happened from the murder some point out the evidence (Rose 15) juror 8 explains the el tracks and how the women across the street couldn 't have seen the body fall with the passing of the el Tracks.

George Eliot once said, “Keep true, never be ashamed of doing right, decide on what you think is right and stick to it.” What that quote means is, no matter the situation, tell the truth. The truth is the only right answer. In today’s world, lying has become an issue. Even in the past lying has been a problem, as represented in The Crucible. The world needs more people with integrity. Integrity is shown through being trustworthy, loyal, and moral under any given circumstance.

This factor is significant for increasing wrongful convictions because of issues regarding those who present the evidence. Jurors are more likely to view experts with more experience in the field as more credible than those with less experience. However, research reveals that experts with more experience were no better than novice experts in testing DNA evidence (Thompson, Tangen, & McCarthy, 2013). Furthermore, when presented with contextual bias, expert witnesses were more likely to reach a conclusion in their research that was consistent with the context given (Tompson et al., 2013). This means that despite jurors weighing forensic evidence heavily, these experts are likely to make mistakes within their research that could result in improper

The Innocence Project lists six primary causes of wrongful convictions exonerated by DNA evidence. The causes are eyewitness misidentification, unvalidated or improper forensic science, false confessions or admissions, government misconduct, informants, and inadequate defense. The leading cause of wrongful convictions proven by DNA evidence is eyewitness misidentification. Eyewitness misidentification was a factor in more than 70% of convictions whose rulings were reversed due to DNA testing nationwide. Throughout history, the reliability of eyewitness identification has been questioned. In 1907, Hugo Mustenberg examined the reliability of eyewitness identification in his book, “On the Witness Stand”. In a study of 65 wrongful convictions completed

The judge and jury in a court case are suppose to take the information presented and use it to decide if the defendant is innocent or guilty. This decision relies on conducting a proper investigation. All the evidence should be presented and used correctly, even if it might not seem significant at the time. Also, the information provided should be as correct as possible with numerous amounts of detail. All suspects should be investigated at the same level of scrutiny as the others to ensure whether are truly innocent or guilty. This way, the jury and judge have accurate and unbiased information to use to make their decision. This was not done in case regarding the murder of Hae Min Lee. Adnan Syed is innocent in the murder of Hae Min Lee because

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

David, I agree with many points in your discussion board. Prosecutors and Defendants both take an oath that anything they present to the court is proven to be true. The integrity of the attorneys is a key role in the law aspect of criminal justice. When a prosecutor brings false evidence is brought to the court room then individuals have the chance of receiving a sentence they are not guilty for. While if an officer violates a convicted individuals rights and the defense does not present the violation in the trial, then this individual was misrepresented and both the defense attorney and officer should be punished.

There are many types of trails that are presented in court during this era that usually consist of at least two eyewitnesses. However, it is very unreasonable to have eyewitnesses during a very serious trial concerning a life or death outcome. Owing to the fact that whatever the individual saw could in fact be modified to fit a certain individual's liking so that he/she could perhaps win the case. Let’s not forget that humans are not perfect and are very different individuals, what one may have witness could possibly not happened exactly as they thought, dependent on the angle they saw the event. Another important factor of viewing an event unfolding, is that whatever is happening could maybe traumatized that individual which also can alter the way he/she saw the event and what really happened.


Eyewitness testimony is unethical as the evidence that is supplied can be provided by someone with stress or anxiety issues this can assist by distraught the image of the suspect. Wrongfully sending an innocent individual to prison. Bloods worth’s case displays it is unethical as there was no psychical evidence nor appearance matched that supported Bloodsworth was responsible for the murder and rape of the victim. Three eyewitnesses were able to identify the perpetrator out of the five and this was based from evidence that he was spotted with the young girl hours earlier before the crime was