Abstract
Although eyewitness accounts have remained as the default investigatory tool for law enforcement in the U.S., they act as the leading causes of wrongful sentences. Psychologists and researchers have identified faults with human memory, and other pieces of evidence such as DNA plays a vital role in exonerating the innocent. From this perspective, we argue out that eyewitness accounts are not reliable in the identification of a perpetrator in a criminal justice case. Forensic evidence plays a vital role in the investigation and prevention of wrongful convictions. This paper outlines the shortcomings of eye witness testimonies in the Bloodsworth vs. the state of Maryland Case and how DNA evidence preserved correctly was used to exonerate the victim. In the end, this paper calls for the collaboration between the judicial system and law enforcement agencies on ways eyewitness accounts can be made more reliable as well as the use of DNA evidence as an alternative in the exoneration of innocent victims.
Keywords: DNA, forensic evidence, memory, criminal justice
Introduction
In any legal system, regardless of jurisdiction, eyewitness testimonies are a critical aspect of the investigation process in a courtroom. In the United States, the criminal justice system relies heavily on the accounts of eyewitnesses in the apprehension and prosecution of criminals. Although eyewitness accounts that implicate an offender offer compelling evidence to the jurors at a trial, the overreliance on human memory in innately unreliable, and the current identification procedures based on eyewitness accounts may unfairly influence their memory of the crime. The Innocence Project found out that wrongful identifications by eyewitness led to more than seventy two percent of post- judgement DNA exonerations in the U.S., thereby making it the leading source of wrongful sentences. Most criminal cases in the United States rely on eyewitness testimonies, and only a few cases are subject to DNA testing, thus making it impossible for wrongfully convicted persons to prove their innocence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Maryland has experienced its fair share of eyewitness misidentification. Kirk Bloodsworth became the first man in the state of Maryland to be acquitted after a wrongful conviction. Bloodsworth was sentenced to 9 years in penitentiary, in which two of those years he was to face execution. Although eyewitness accounts placed him at the scene of the crime and on multiple occasions, the witnesses stated that they had seen him with the victim, there was lack of physical evidence that tied Kirk to the murder. There are other examples of wrongful eyewitness convictions in Maryland, such as the Larry Hugee case. Although Hugee had other previous convictions, he was wrongfully convicted for the theft of a Dollar Tree. Jerry Jenkins was also another case of wrongful conviction based on an eyewitness account for rape. This led to Jenkins spending almost 26 years in state penitentiary for a crime he never committed. Based on these cases and others in the State of Maryland as well as across the United States, establish the need for the federal government and the legal system to re-evaluate the eyewitness identification strategies to help alleviate wrongful convictions.
Background of the Case, Investigation and Trial
Kirk Bloodsworth, a former marine who was employed on the Eastern Shore of Maryland as a waterman, was the first individual receive the death penalty and then acquitted . When he was wrongfully convicted, Bloodsworth was only 22-years old, and he served nine years in prison before he was released (Taylor and Griffith-Reed, 2016) . The police found Dawn Hamilton's partially naked body on July 25, 1984, in the woods of Golden Ring Mall. The 9-year-old lay on her stomach with a sharp pointed stick that was eight inches long, bulging out from her vagina. Close to the head, the investigation officers identified a of rock with bloodstains (Taylor and Griffith-Reed, 2016) . What led to the arrest of Bloodsworth was that the police had been tipped off by an anonymous caller who said that Dawn Hamilton had previously been seen Bloodsworth earlier in the day as well as on the account another witness who claimed to have identified Bloodsworth from a police sketch that had broadcasted on television.
Based on account of the other five key witnesses, Bloodsworth was imprisoned on March 8, 1985, and condemned to death by a Baltimore county judge of first-degree premeditated murder, rape, and sexual assault (Taylor and Griffith-Reed, 2016) . Out of the five, two witnesses had difficulties in identifying Bloodsworth during a police lineup but then changed their testimony to having seen him on TV after the crime was committed. In his defense, Bloodsworth had told a few individuals in the Eastern Shore that he could not get back to Rosedale because he had done "something terrible," a remark that haunted him for the rest of his case and contributed to his conviction. Additionally, Bloodsworth also revealed the possibility of having a bloody rock during his conversations with the police (Taylor and Griffith-Reed, 2016) . Although there was no physical evidence connecting him to the murder, Bloodsworth was convicted to 9 years in prison for rape and murder, in addition to being sentenced to death row.
Post-conviction Investigation and Challenges
In 1986, an appeal was filed by Bloodsworth attorney challenging the following:
The Sufficiency of Evidence
Bloodsworth's appeal challenged the evidence about the bloody concrete rock that was found where Hamilton's body was discovered (Taylor and Griffith-Reed, 2016) . Bloodsworth stated that he mentioned the rock in his testimony because during the cross-examination the police had showed it the rock. There were also some inconsistencies in the witness testimonies. Jackie Poling testified that Bloodsworth was the man that left with Hamilton in search of Lisa but he was incapable of making an in-court identification of Bloodsworth. In the lineup of August 12, 1984, Poling recognized the man who was in position number three and not Bloodsworth who was in position number six (Taylor and Griffith-Reed, 2016) . Bloodsworth also invoked the Brady violation because the prosecution withheld information that could have been instrumental in overturning his conviction. The police withheld information to the prosecution over a Richard Gray who was discovered wandering in the woods shortly before Hamilton's body was found. Bloodsworth notes the failure of the state to provide information about Richard Gray who had been overlooked as a second suspect in the case.
During his first trial, Dr. Buckhoult's testimony on how memory issues affect the ability of eyewitness accounts in identifications. The judge stated that her testimony would be of little value to the jury in his case (Taylor and Griffith-Reed, 2016) . After the appeal, Bloodsworth was convicted a second time, and he was sentenced to two life terms. In June 1993, DNA evidence exonerated Kirk Bloodsworth from the convictions of rape and first-degree murder after his innocence was established through post-conviction DNA testing (Taylor and Griffith-Reed, 2016) .
Analysis: Eyewitness Misidentification
Eyewitness accounts are vital in the apprehension and prosecution of criminals, and they can also be used in exonerating the innocent (Gustafsson, Lindholm and Jönsson, 2019) . Over the past four decades, research on eyewitness memory and cognition have brought the unreliability of eyewitness memory to the fore. Eyewitness misidentification has been identified as the genesis wrongful convictions in the United States. Since 1989, more than 75 percent of wrongly convicted persons have been exonerated by DNA evidence. The unreliability of eyewitness accounts is based on two reasons (Gustafsson, Lindholm and Jönsson, 2019) . First, researchers and psychologists have identified problems with human memory and perception that may affect the eyewitness's ability to identify the correct suspect. Second, the process involved by law enforcement agencies in the United States makes it possible for police to influence the identification pf the suspect.
The Blurred Boundary between Memory and Perception
Kirk was convicted of rape and first-degree murder Dawn Hamilton in 1984 and condemned to death based on the testimonies of five eyewitnesses (Gustafsson, Lindholm and Jönsson, 2019) . For a very long time, eyewitness testimonies have been used to convict the most dangerous criminals in the world. Human is to error, and this is a basic principle that underlies the accounts of eyewitnesses in that the human mind is very selective in what it records, reconstructs and fills in the missing details of the information. Human memory does not work like a film in which the mind records events and then reproduces the exact events. On the other hand, it has been found that the human mind reconstructs memories rather than plan them back each time an event is recalled (Gustafsson, Lindholm and Jönsson, 2019) . The questioning of police officers or by an attorney may result in the witness altering their testimony because their memories may unconsciously the information provided by the interrogator leading to the inaccuracy to recall.
In the Bloodsworth case, the judge and the jurors relied on circumstantial evidence that was provided by the eyewitnesses. Christian Shipley and Jackie Poling gave the police two conflicting accounts when they were creating the composite for Bloodsworth. Shipley was able to recognize Kirk at the police line-up, but Jackie was not able to identify the man that she saw at the fishing pond even after appearing in court. (Gustafsson, Lindholm and Jönsson, 2019) The police officers investigating the case were not thorough when it came to creating Bloodsworth composite. The police used an "indenti-kit" in reconstructing an already predetermined face. In an interview after his release, Bloodsworth said that the children were not happy about the mustache on the composite, but the police ignored their comments and proceeded to broadcast his picture on TV (Nayak and Khajuria, 2019) .
It was against police protocol to publish Bloodsworth's sketch in the media without following the due process of interviewing all the witnesses' first thus spoiling the integrity of the investigation. James Keller indentified Bloodsworth at the police line-up and in court because he had seen Bloodsworth on television. Keller's account was inaccurate, and all attempts by Bloodsworth to point out the mistakes made by the witnesses were futile (Nayak and Khajuria, 2019) . It was for detective Capel to issue an arrest warrant for Bloodsworth because he was unable to reconstruct his whereabouts as he was sure that he had never been to the area where Hamilton was murdered. Bloodsworth was also arrested on the account that he mentioned a bloody rock in his testimony. As a source of bias in the identification of Bloodsworth as the killer, the interrogating officers informed Bloodsworth about the rock. This opens the possibility that the police officers may have secretly conveyed information to Bloodsworth that could have unconsciously influenced his judgment, thus leading to the arrest. Based on this, we can also conclude after seen Bloodsworth on TV, and the unanimous caller informed the police on his whereabouts (Nayak and Khajuria, 2019) .
Bloodsworth did not have any previous convictions, but both the police and the judge chose to create and match a killer psychological profile to him. The policemen also thought that Bloodsworth killer instincts would be attracted to the evidence placing the rock with blood and the dead girl's pants in front of him. On the contrary, Bloodsworth stated that he was not a killer and would do no such thing to a child (Gustafsson, Lindholm and Jönsson, 2019) . We can also conclude that the viewing conditions during the murder of Dawn Hamilton were far from ideal thus leading to ambiguity when it came to remembering and perceiving the face of the perpetrator. When Bloodsworth met the children at the pond, and he agreed to help find Hamilton's lost cousin, I am convinced that Christian and Jackie had a brief period to construct Bloodsworth visual information. After an analysis of their conversation, Christian and Jackie were more concerned about fishing rather than helping Hamilton find her lost cousin, meaning it would have been difficult to scrutinize the Bloodworth's correct facial features.
The Promise of DNA Testing
Bloodsworth became the first American to go into history books to be exonerated by DNS evidence. After spending nine years in prison, Bloodsworth obtained court approval for testing of the semen from Hamilton's underpants that were preserved from the crime. The PCR (polymerase chain reaction) was the evolving DNA secience that was used by Edward Blake in establishing the innocence of Bloodsworth (Gustafsson, Lindholm and Jönsson, 2019) . Kimberly Ruffner was found to be the perpetrator of the crime after the FBI substantiated the DNA results, which lead to Kirk’s absolution by the then Maryland Governor, William Schaefer.
The death penalty debate has been altered by DNA evidence based on the cases of Troy Davis and Kirk Bloodsworth. At the time Bloodsworth was convicted, DNA testing was not available, and therefore no one thought of testing the semen stains on the victim's underwear (Nayak and Khajuria, 2019) . The cost of eyewitness misidentifications leads to the innocent being convicted and the guilty continuing to perform crimes. Bloodsworth case proved the malleability and fragility of eyewitness memory based on the primary accounts of two children, one of whom was unable to identify Kirk from a group of photoes but was able to identify him in court. Science has proved that DNA evidence is vital in the prosecution or defense because: First, DNA evidence is vital in establishing the truth for the benefit of society (Nayak and Khajuria, 2019) . Second, it is important that DNA evidence improves and maintains the reliability of the court process.
Recommendations
Interviewing witnesses is a critical process in the criminal justice system, and therefore the police should transfer complete control to the witnesses in order avoid unintended bias as they may be easily persuaded by people in power and authority (Loftus, 2018) . The witnesses should also be given time to recollect and report the events in their own order and to indicate also when they are unsure of the details. Detectives make use of open-ended questions to help fill in the gaps if any. The police must always follow the stipulated guidelines for conducting line-ups. It is stated that the line-up consists of the suspect and s/he should not be noticeable from the rest (Loftus, 2018) . The guidelines also state that non-suspects are to be selected based on the eyewitness' description of the offender.
The courtroom largely depends on the memory of jurors and judges who many at times are faced with legal instructions and procedures. Judges and jurors must take into consideration for witnesses' not to be asked misleading questions by prosecutors who may intentionally want to obscure or play with their emotions. Judges and jurors are also advised not to rely entirely on the memory of an eyewitness, especially if the event was traumatic Judges and jurors should also understand that eyewitness accounts should not be equated to DNA attestation (Loftus, 2018) . Irrespective of the case, judges and jurors heavily rely on eye witness accounts. From science and research, we learn that: First, analysis of DNA during postconviction processes has revealed that eyewitness accounts sometimes lead to the identification of the wrong people and the second, the blurred lines between perception and memory has resulted in wrong convictions based on overconfidence, bias and uncertainty (Loftus, 2018) .
Conclusion
It is a tragedy to the victim and the society when an innocent person is convicted and sentenced to serve any amount for a crim that they did not commit. The United States criminal justice system should strive to avoid the likelihood of wrongful convictions. Human memory and perception are imperfect and is subject to distortion and loss. Awareness and educational programs of perception procedures are important to the judicial systems in the United States. Eyewitnesses identification procedures can be improved by implementing necessary reforms to the guidelines used by law enforcement agencies as well as the tests conducted by courts in determining the reliability of eyewitness identifications.
References
Gustafsson, P., Lindholm, T. and Jönsson, F., 2019. Predicting Accuracy in Eyewitness Testimonies with Memory Retrieval Effort and Confidence. Frontiers in Psychology , 10.
Loftus, E., 2018. Eyewitness Science and the Legal System. Annual Review of Law and Social Science , 14(1), pp.1-10.
Nayak, B. and Khajuria, H., 2019. Eyewitness testimony: probative value in criminal justice system. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences , 9(1).
Taylor, J. and Griffith-Reed, A., 2016. State V. Bloodworth . 2nd ed. Alphen aan den Rijn, South Holland: Wolters Kluwer.
