NAME: VAISHNAVI JADHAV

CLASS: XI D
ROLL NO. 18
SUBJECT: PSYCHOLOGY
TOPIC: EYEWITNESS AND FALSE MEMORY
SCHOOL: DAV INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, KHARGHAR
 Certificate

This is to certify that the project work Eyewitness and False Memory is the
bonafide work of Vaishnavi Jadhav who carried out the work under my
supervision Mrs. Sriekala ma’am.

…………..

Name and Signature of the Teacher/Supervisor

 Acknowledgement

I would like to extend my sincere and heartfelt obligation towards all

those who have helped me in making this project. Without their active
guidance, help, cooperation and encouragement, I would not have
been able to present the project on time.
I am extremely thankful and pay my gratitude to my teacher Mrs.
Sriekala Nair for her valuable guidance and support for the
completion of this project.
I extend my gratitude to my principal Mrs. Seema Mandiratta for her
moral support extended during the tenure of the project.
I also acknowledge with a deep sense of reverence, my gratitude
towards my parents, other faculty members of the school and friends
for their valuable suggestions given to me in completing this project.

Date: 15/12/2023 Vaishnavi Jadhav

Name of the Student
 Preface

It gives me great pleasure to present the project report on “Eyewitness

and False Memory”
The project report is as per the guidelines of C.B.S.E.
I hope that the project will meet all the specifications of Psychology.
I am highly indebted to the teacher in charge Mrs. Sriekala Nair for
her guideline and content supervision as well as providing necessary
information regarding her project and also for her support in
completing the project.
 Index

Sr. no. Name Pg no.

1. Introduction 6

2. Content 7-9

3. Conclusion 10

4. Bibliography 11
Memory Making: Eyewitness and False Memories

Eyewitness Memory

Introduction
An individual’s recollection of an event, often a crime or accident of some kind,
that they personally saw or experienced. The reliability of eyewitness testimony
is a major issue in forensic psychology, given the existence of such phenomena
as the misinformation effect and weapon-focus effect. It can also refer to an
individual's memory for a face, where they are required to remember the face of
their perpetrator.
It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a
major role in the wrongful conviction of innocent individuals. This may be due
to the fact that details of unpleasant emotional events are recalled poorly
compared to neutral events. States of high emotional arousal, which occur
during a stressful or traumatic event, lead to less efficient memory processing.
 Content
How Memory Works?
After witnessing a crime and being asked to identify the culprit, eyewitnesses
sometimes express great confidence in the accuracy of their identifications,
saying, “I was so frightened. I’ll never forget that face.” However, research and
real-life cases reveal that eyewitnesses may misidentify the perpetrator.
Contrary to popular belief, memory does not function like a videotape recorder.
Events are not recorded in the mind so that they can be played back later rather,
complex reconstruction takes place to form the “memory” for the particular
event.
Memory formation consists of 3 stages: Acquisition Stage, Retention Stage and
Retrieval Stage

Acquisition Stage: The acquisition stage occurs when the original event is
perceived. The amount of information encoded into a person’s memory system
is actually only a small portion of the person’s surrounding environment.

Retention Stage: After the information from the event is stored in memory,
many factors can affect the memory. This period of time between the event and
recall of it is called Retention stage. Eyewitnesses may overhear a conversation
between other witnesses or read a newspaper article about the crime; these are
examples of “post-event information” that can alter the original memory.
Sometimes post-event information can even cause a witness to introduce non-
existent objects into the memory. After a person witnesses a crime, he may be
exposed to information that alters the original memory with the new
information or that causes the eyewitness to compromise between the original
memory and the new information.

Retrieval Stage: Witnesses try to recall information and may simply provide
a narrative about what happened or answer specific questions. Retrieval can
occur many times. Some factors that influence accuracy and completeness of an
eye-witness’s account during the retrieval stage include the environment in
which the retrieval process takes place, the type and wording of questions to
obtain information, and who is asking the question.
Factors That Affect the Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony
The reliability of eyewitness testimony is an important factor in how and if it is
used in a court case. Plaintiffs and defence attorneys want to present accurate,
honest testimony that will help their cases. This makes it imperative for witness
testimony to be scrutinized by attorneys prior to being presented in court. If
eyewitness testimony is found to be inaccurate, it may hurt a case more than
help it.
Attorneys will pay particular attention to four factors that can influence the
reliability of witness testimony as they gauge whether or not to include it in
their case arguments.

Four Factors That Can Influence the Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

Stress and anxiety. Victims are not alone in experiencing stress and anxiety after
a crime or accident has occurred. Witnesses can feel the same, especially if the
crash is particularly violent or resonates with them for personal reasons. The
more stress the witness feels, the more likely he or she is to present inaccurate
testimony.
Influenced memories. Our memories are influenced by our realities, society, and
cultural norms. Our brains are not videotaping what we see; instead, the brain
tries to make sense of what we are witnessing based on what we know and
understand. This can result in “reconstructive memory”, which is not
necessarily accurate to what really occurred and can hurt the reliability of
eyewitness testimony.
Racial disparities. Much like influenced memories, our personal beliefs and
experiences can influence how we remember an incident.. Our prejudices can
affect how we remember an event, whether we are cognizant of them or not.
Lack of distinct characteristics. The reliability of eyewitness testimony in
identifying people is made more difficult when the accused does not have any
distinguishing characteristics. Tattoos, unique hair coloring or styles, extreme
height, etc. can help witnesses recall and identify people. By contrast, people
who do not have any distinctive characteristics are harder for witnesses to
remember and identify.
Reliability of Eyewitness Memory
In 1992, Francisco “Franky” Carrillo, Jr. was convicted of murder and six
counts of attempted murder for a shooting that occurred on January 18, 1991.
On that day, six teenage boys were standing on a curb talking in front of a house
in the Los Angeles suburb of Lynwood. Donald Sarpy, the father of one of the
boys, stepped onto the driveway to call his son inside when a car drove by and
two shots were fired, killing Sarpy.
Carrillo became a suspect in the case after he was mistakenly identified by the
police as the shooter in separate case. On the night of the Sarpy shooting, the
police showed one of the eyewitnesses a picture of Carrillo. That witness later
identified Carrillo as the shooter and told the five other witnesses to identify
Carrillo as the shooter. There was no physical evidence linking Carrillo to the
crime. However, all the eyewitnesses identified Carrillo as the shooter and
testified to the identification at the first trial, which ended in a hung jury.
Before the second trial, the witness who initially identified Carrillo as the
shooter recanted. Despite this recantation, the prosecution proceeded in the
second trial with eyewitness testimony from the remaining witnesses, and the
second jury convicted Carrillo of murder and six counts of attempted murder.
Eventually, all of the eyewitnesses recanted their identification at a hearing on a
motion for a new trial filed by NCIP.
The initial witness who identified Carrillo testified that police pointed out
Carrillo as the main suspect, leading that eyewitness to encourage his friends to
identify Carrillo.
NCIP, working with law firm Morrison & Foerster and volunteer attorney Ellen
Eggers, also convinced the court to go to the scene of the crime to reenact the
shooting as described by the witnesses, which demonstrated that it was
physically impossible for the witnesses to have seen the perpetrator’s face.
On March 14, 2011, the Los Angeles County Superior Court reversed Carrillo’s
conviction for Sarpy’s murder and ordered Carrillo’s release from over two
decades of imprisonment. The conviction was overturned after the six
eyewitnesses all admitted that they did not really see anything and had been
influenced to identify Carrillo. In addition, two other men confessed to the
shooting and said that Carrillo was not involved.
REALATED IMAGES

Figure 1 DONALD SARPY

Figure 2 FRANSISCO CARILLO AT TRIAL

 Conclusion
To conclude, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and convincing to jurors,
even though it is not particularly reliable. Identification errors occur, and these
errors can lead to people being falsely accused and even convicted. Likewise,
eyewitness memory can be corrupted by leading questions, misinterpretations of
events, conversations with co-witnesses, and their own expectations for what
should have happened. People can even come to remember whole events that
never occurred.

The problems with memory in the legal system are real. But what can we do to
start to fix them? A number of specific recommendations have already been
made, and many of these are in the process of being implemented (e.g., Steblay
& Loftus, 2012; Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999;
Wells et al., 1998). Some of these recommendations are aimed at specific legal
procedures, including when and how witnesses should be interviewed, and how
lineups should be constructed and conducted. Other recommendations call for
appropriate education (often in the form of expert witness testimony) to be
provided to jury members and others tasked with assessing eyewitness memory.
Eyewitness testimony can be of great value to the legal system, but decades of
research now argues that this testimony is often given far more weight than its
accuracy justifies.
 Bibliography

[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]