Why is
eyewitness testimony so unreliable that even without police misconduct it requires special jury instructions or a pretrial hearing?
Not exact matches
So much for
eyewitness testimony, huh?
So, no, as a general rule the
testimony on many
eyewitnesses, even verifiable ones, isn't always reliable, is it?
So on one hand we have Jesus... in which we have
eyewitness testimony, who even secular historians acknowledge lived, and KNOW that humans exist.
So perhaps a hypothetical «ear - witness»
testimony wouldn't be perfect, but the witness would have a decent chance of being correct — just like with
eyewitness testimony.
For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the
testimony of
eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident
eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate — and sometimes no more
so — than those who are less confident.
«Not only was there no forensic evidence or
eyewitness testimony linking the petitioner to the crime, the state's primary witnesses came forward with incriminating evidence more than 20 years after the crime and did
so only after either learning of the sizeable reward being offered in the case, reading Mark Fuhrman's 1998 book, Murder in Greenwich: Who Killed Martha Moxley, inculpating the petitioner, or both.»
Another, perhaps even more important problem, is how a jury relies
so heavily on
eyewitness testimony to determine what in fact happened.