In some cases a guy goes on trial for a murder that happened 20 years ago. And sometimes witnesses are called to describe what they saw the day of the crime.
People are supposed to remember things from 20 years past? I assume the defense attorneys will bring up the fact that memories are not accurate that far back. I suppose the jury decides if their memory is good or not?
Yes
I once served on a jury in a civil case that had to consider some evidence that was around 50 years old. In addition to reviewing documents, we listened to the recollections of witnesses, including one who had only been a child at the time of the events. Unfortunately, his recollections were not clear, and he made a crucial mistake in his testimony – he referred to the wrong name. You could feel the gasp in the courtroom – it was like something from a movie. Even though he eventually corrected himself, the fact that he had got that name wrong turned the jury against him. We couldn’t be sure how much of his testimony was accurate, and how much had been coached. We ended up discounting his testimony, and ultimately ruling against his side in the case. After the trial, the attorney for that side interviewed me, and asked me what had been the most important factor in our decision. I told him that the failure of that witness to give the right name was the critical turning point in the trial.
Here in the UK we are currently prosecuting any number of people (and it looks like Cliff Richard is about to join them) for indecent assaults that may or may not have happened 40 or 50 years ago.
A lot people have their doubts about the quality of evidence.
Folks are more likely to remember what happened all those years ago, on the day that somebody was murdered.
And about the motives behind it.
True. However, many successful prosecutions of historic cases are when the evidende was collected at the time of occurrence but the matter was hushed up.
Yes, I can recall all sorts of details and events concerning the day my cousin was murdered and I wan’t even a witness. I can remember precisely what people who actually witnessed the event told and people other peoples reaction to the event. That sort of stuff sticks in your mind.
Similarly, I’ll never forget the details of the day I was almost murdered. Sensations such as smell, taste, feelings and the attackers facial expressions and voice tone will never go away.
It’s a fact of human nature that most people will try to refresh their memories before testifying about long-past events. They’ll read diary entries, letters and the like. You can even do this on the witness stand by showing the witness something they wrote contemporaneous to (or at least close to) the time of the event. A police officer might be shown the report he filed in 1992 or whenever, for example.
As others have noted, people can remember significant events even decades later. If, theoretically, Roman Polanski were retried I’m sure Samantha Geimer could testify that she was drugged and sexually assaulted.
On the other hand, I was once being interviewed as a possible witness in a lawsuit. It was over a routine investigation I had done nine years previously. And I admitted I had no recollection at all of the investigation even after I read the report I had made back at the time.
Its done all the time for Policemen/women and indeed expert witnesses (forensic scientist, chemical examiners) as their depositions may be made (even in ordinary run of the mill trials) months or even years after the fact. Usually, they are permitted to employ their notes as an aid to recollection, but not repeat them verbatim.
When historic allegations succeed, it is often because of contemporaneous records and investigations whose material was preserved. Oftentimes, because the perpetrator and his friends were able to suppress any formal action.
Remember that eye witness testimony, as important as it may be, is not the only evidence presented to the Jury. Any forensic evidence, such as recently analyzed DNA or fingerprint evidence will also be presented which may point the finger at the defendent.
I think juries understand that most people can’t remember in detail events that happened 20 or 30 years ago, however if it was a significant event in someone’s life they are much more likely to remember it.
A good defense attorney will put doubt in the minds of the jury whether any testimony is accurate regardless of how long ago the crime was.
Yes. If the witnesses simply cannot remember enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or the jury considers the testimony doubtful, the defendant walks. This is one of the reasons that prosecuting old crimes can be very difficult, and why many lesser crimes (e.g. petty theft, DUI, second degree mopery) have statutes of limitations saying that after X years you can’t prosecute, because after all those years a trial is likely to be a travesty.
This week on Serial…
No, they are not- well, not and have the memory be accurate. Memories are quite worthless that long ago.
As time goes by your memory of a event changes. Reading accounts of the crime or being questioned about it will change your memory.
True, but then again that memory is much more likely to be false.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/18/health/lifeswork-loftus-memory-malleability/
*One of Loftus’ first experiments, published in 1974, involved car accidents. In the lab she played videos of different incidents and then asked people what they remembered seeing. Their answers depended greatly on how she phrased the question.
For instance, if she asked how fast the cars were going when they “smashed” into each other, people estimated, on average, that the cars were going 7 mph faster than when she substituted the word “hit” for “smashed.” And a week after seeing the video, those who were asked using the word “smashed” remembered seeing broken glass, even though there was none in the film.
Even a seemingly less important word in the sentence can make a difference in an eyewitness account, Loftus found. In a subsequent study she asked people if they saw “a broken headlight” or “the broken headlight.” Those who were asked about “the” broken headlight were more likely to remember seeing it, though it never existed.
Police officers’ biggest mistake is talking too much, Loftus says. “They don’t, you know, wait and let the witness talk. They are sometimes communicating information to the witness, even inadvertently, that can convey their theory of what happened, their theory of who did it.”*
And those memories are very likely false. Sorry.
Quite frankly I have two issues with this study. One is that it was only performed on students and not people with more extensive “real life” experience, so I would think it biased towards a younger mindset. Second is that I think that real life vs staged memory experiments don’t fully take into account the emotions invoked in the real life event. Getting stabbed or having a loved one murdered invokes some very strong memory cues that I doubt could be reproduced in a study.
I can still smell the alcohol on her breath as we were nose to nose struggling over control of the knife. How do reproduce that in a memory study?
Actually, traumatic events make most people less likely to remember events accurately.