The Same Race Effect
|
| By Tim Robertson
|
| © 2002, 2007
|
| http://www.oocities.org/tarob01
|
| Prosecutors often rely upon eyewitness testimony to prove their case in criminal litigation proceedings. Eyewitness testimony is normally very powerful evidence in courtrooms and it has an enormous influence on jurors. Eyewitnesses are often the victims of crime and their testimony is usually emotionally charged and highly influential on jurors. It should be hoped that the eyewitness testimony is as accurate as possible, considering the testimony's ramifications upon a defendant on trial. It is the jury's responsibility to listen to eyewitnesses and then determine the amount of weight and credibility that the testimony will have upon their eventual verdict. |
| In criminal proceedings and experimental studies eyewitnesses are more likely to accurately identify people of the same race. I n experimental studies researchers require participants to give equal attention to facial features of both races while in criminal proceedings and identification lineups this does not happen. The tendency to misidentify suspects of a different race is called "same race effect." These mis-identifications have occasionally resulted in wrongful convictions of innocent people. |
| DNA evidence has saved many of these wrongfully convicted people in the United States. In many cases eyewitnesses have identified the wrong person only to have DNA tests later prove that the accused was innocent. DNA tests have also revealed the magnitude of the "same race effect." Most crimes tend to occur with in the same race as the person that committed the crime. Therefore, the majority of White eyewitnesses are the victims of crimes committed by other white people and black eyewitness are most often the victims of crimes committed by black people. White eyewitnesses are more likely to misidentify Black suspects and less likely to misidentify White suspects. The same is true of Black eyewitnesses. |
| How can the Justice system confront the problem of the "same race effect" and prevent innocent people from being wrongfully identified? The courts often rely upon expert witness testimony as one remedy. However, expert testimony does not confront the problem at the beginning of the process. For example, expert testimony does not prevent a witness from incorrectly identifying an innocent person from an initial police lineup. It also tends to be protracted, which leads to expensive trials. Expert testimony is often a futile remedy in countering the "same race effect." |
| Expert testimony helps jurors identify inaccurate eyewitness testimony, and assists them in reaching an appropriate verdict. However, expert testimony does not address errors that occur during a police lineup when the eyewitness makes their initial identification. To reduce those errors, police should utilize "fillers" in all lineups. Fillers are occasionally planted in lineups to reflect attention away from an innocent suspect. |
| According to Daubert standards, judges must decide if expert witness testimony will aid the trier in fact (jury) in reaching a proper decision. Daubert is not a set of scientific principles, rather it is a two pronged U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding the relevancy and reliability of expert testimony, such as whether the technique has been peer reviewed and derived from the scientific method. The reliability and the error rates of the technique may also be considered when determining whether to allow expert testimony on a particular subject. |
| Meissner and Brigham (2001) conducted a meta analysis of various studies which give weight to the fact that racial mis-identification in police lineups is a serious problem in American Jurisprudence. For example, an innocent Black suspect has fifty-six percent greater chance of being mis-identified in a police lineup by a white eyewitness than a black eyewitness. Allowing a jury to hear these error rates fulfills the spirit of Daubert, and precluding this evidence from a jury would be irresponsible. Criminal trials should allow a jury to carefully evaluate all evidence that might exonerate an innocent defendant or prove his innocence. It is the state's burden to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, providing the jury has all relevant evidence. |
| Judges should allow expert witnesses testimony regarding the risks of eyewitness mis-identification, or the "same race effect." Evidence concerning the reliability of eyewitness testimony that might potentially convict an innocent person should always be considered germane and allowed in the courtroom. The meta analysis suggests that much research has been conducted relating to eyewitness mis-identification, and the problems and benefits associated with it. Therefore, expert testimony concerning the "same race effect" does rise to the Daubert standard. |
| It is possible that providing jurors with specific instructions regarding the phenomena of a "same race effect" will taint their decision in favor of the defendant. However, it still should be given. The defendant should have a right for a jury to hear any inaccurate or non-reliable evidence that may lead to a wrongful conviction. The defendant should always be assumed innocent until they are proven guilty by a preponderance of reliable evidence. |
| The evidence presented in the discussion appear to affirm a "same race effect." Eyewitnesses are more likely to misidentify people of a different race, and are less likely to misidentify people of their own race. The discussion revealed that other factors probably contribute to the high error rate of eyewitness mis-identification. Expert witnesses can play a role in minimizing the impact of inaccurate eyewitness testimony. However, other measures should be taken during initial police lineups to help reduce the possibility of a "same race effect." Identification aides such as fillers and blank lineups should be utilized rather than relying on expert testimony and juror instructions to correct the mistakes during trial. |