Henry Skinner is on death row in Texas for the 1993 murder of his girlfriend and her two adult sons. Skinner has always maintained his innocence, even when he came within 47 minutes of being executed in March before the Supreme Court agreed to a stay of execution. In his trial the jury only deliberated for a period under two hours, and reportedly strongly based their decision on the testimony of Skinner’s neighbor and DNA evidence. However, not of all the DNA evidence collected was tested, including the hairs that were found grasped in a victim’s hand. After new tests, the hairs, and other DNA evidence did not match Skinner. More importantly, the star witness Andrea Reed, Skinner’s neighbor and ex-girlfriend, has recanted her testimony. Reed stated in the trial that she spoke with Skinner immediately following the murders, when he stopped her from the calling the police and made many incriminating statements about the murders. Reed now claims that the detectives and police frightened her into testifying false information, more about her false information can be seen in the article Hank Skinner Death Penalty Case . . ., Politics Daily. Leaving out all of the DNA evidence and not exposing the lies of the star witness Reed in the first case is a fault of Skinner’s Court Appointed Attorney. Perhaps now, before the Supreme Court Skinner will have a more skilled criminal defense attorney, something that could save his life.
Posts Tagged ‘eyewitness’
Fictional Videos change eyewitness memories

photo: Gone-Walkabout
The validity of eyewitness testimony has long been debated. How can someone’s memory be perfect during a tramatic event when they hardly remember normal everyday details? Yet another study has been performed by psychologists on the topic, this time to prove that fake video can easily change an eyewitness’s recollection of an event. Psychologists at the University of Warwick showed members of a gambling-type game doctored video of their opponent cheating during the game. Over half of the participants agreed to sign an official statement verifying the cheating even though the test subject did not witness any cheating in reality because it did not occur. This study continues to prove the theory that memories are often influenced by outside information, even if it is completely fictional. Fabricated evidence could lead an eyewitnesses to falsely accuse a defendant, and enter additional evidence into a criminal case that is only correlated to the case through a lie. Wired.com published an article on this study to show how serious photographic and video evidence can be to a criminal case.
State of Utah v. Deon Lomax Clopten : Eyewitness Testimony is often Inaccurate
Since DNA testing was first introduced in the 1990s it has been used to free wrongly convicted prisoners, including some that were sentenced to death. Many of these innocents were incarcerated due to the testimony of an eyewitness. This demonstrates that many of these eyewitnesses provided faulty testimony without knowing it. There are many reasons why an eyewitness may strongly believe in the false information they are presenting. First, certain attributes such as psychological disorders and substance dependency make a person more likely to be involved in criminal activity and therefore more likely to be falsely connected to a crime. Next, jurors often believe more in a witness who claims to be very sure about their testimony even though their accuracy is nearly the same as the less confident. Third, the way in which the human memory works makes it very susceptible to false recall. The human mind does not work like a camera storing information and playing it back when needed. Instead, memories are reconstructed each time they are needed. Other pieces of information could unknowingly be combined into the memory, leading to false recall. Certain factors can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness identification such as:
- The way in which a lawyer questions the eyewitness
- Extreme stress
- Presence of a weapon at the crime scene
- Use of a disguise during the crime
- A racial disparity between the witness and the suspect
- Limited viewing time during identification
- Lack of distinctive characteristics to aid in identification
It would be very difficult to minimize such errors of testimony as the witness often feels very strongly about the accuracy of their recollection. One suggestion to remedy the situation is to allow an expert on eyewitness identification to testify in court to educate the jurors on the process in which an eyewitness recalls facts. In most U.S. jurisdictions such experts have not been allowed in the courtroom. However, in Utah, in December of 2009 in the case of the State of Utah v. Deon Lomax Clopten the Supreme Court of Utah overturned a murder conviction in which the trial judge refused to allow an expert on eyewitness identification to testify for the defense.





