How reliable are eyewitnesses?

Lens adapted to this topic: When eyewitness evidence can be reliable

A substantial dissent from the blanket-warning view argues that eyewitness memory should be assessed like other forensic evidence: contamination can make it unreliable, but uncontaminated evidence collected early may be informative. This position does not deny wrongful identifications; it argues that research and legal practice have sometimes overgeneralized from contaminated or poorly obtained testimony.

• The claim that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable is too broad; reliability depends on how the evidence was collected and tested.
• Initial memory tests conducted early in an investigation, before contamination, may be more reliable than later testimony.
• Eyewitness evidence can sometimes accurately indicate that a police suspect is innocent, not merely identify a perpetrator.
• The relevant comparison is not perfect memory versus no memory, but contaminated versus uncontaminated forensic evidence.

4 sourcesView sources