The Unreliability of Eyewitness Testimony and the Importance of Circumstantial Evidence

Eyewitness testimony has long been a cornerstone of legal proceedings, often considered a powerful tool in establishing facts and determining the truth. However, recent studies and legal analyses have increasingly shown that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. This unreliability stems from a variety of factors, including the fallibility of human memory, the influence of stress or trauma on recall, and the potential for suggestion or bias during the identification process. In many cases, circumstantial evidence—indirect evidence that suggests a fact by implication or inference—can be a more reliable and objective means of establishing the truth.

The Fallibility of Human Memory

One of the primary reasons eyewitness testimony is unreliable is the inherent fallibility of human memory. Memory is not like a video recorder that captures events exactly as they happen. Instead, it is a complex, reconstructive process that can be influenced by a variety of factors. Psychological research has shown that memories can be distorted, altered, or even fabricated over time. (E. Loftus, Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory, Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361-366 (2005)). People may unintentionally fill in gaps in their memories with details that did not actually occur, often influenced by subsequent conversations or media reports. (D. Schacter, The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience, American Psychologist, 54(3), 182-203)(1999).

Stress and trauma, common in situations where eyewitnesses are involved, can further impair memory. During a traumatic event, the body’s fight-or-flight response can cause the brain to focus narrowly on certain details while neglecting others. (K. Deffenbacher, B. Bornstein, S. Penrod, & E. McGorty, A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory, Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 687-706)(2004)). This can lead to incomplete or inaccurate recall, where critical details about the event are either forgotten or remembered incorrectly. For instance, in the chaos of a car accident, an eyewitness might remember the general sequence of events but fail to accurately recall the color of a traffic light or the speed of the vehicles involved. (J. Yuille & J. Cutshall, A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 291-301)(1986)).

The Influence of Suggestion and Bias

Another significant factor contributing to the unreliability of eyewitness testimony is the potential for suggestion and bias during the identification process. Law enforcement officials and attorneys, even unintentionally, can influence an eyewitness’s memory through their questions or the way they present evidence. (G. Wells & E. Loftus, Eyewitness memory for people and events, Handbook of Psychology: Forensic Psychology, 11, 149-160)(2003)). For example, if an investigator repeatedly asks a witness about a specific detail, the witness may begin to incorporate that detail into their memory, believing it to be true even if it was not originally part of their recollection. (E. Loftus & J. Palmer, Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589)(1974)).

Similarly, the process of identifying suspects from a lineup can introduce bias. Studies have shown that the way lineups are conducted—such as the order in which individuals are presented, the instructions given to the witness, or the presence of leading questions—can significantly affect the accuracy of an eyewitness’s identification. (N. Steblay, G. Wells, & A. Douglass, Eyewitness identification reform: State of the art, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10, 337-354)(2014)). These factors can lead to false identification, where an innocent person is mistakenly identified as the perpetrator, which can have devastating consequences in criminal cases. (S. Penrod & B. Cutler, Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(4), 817-845)(1995)).

The Strength of Circumstantial Evidence

Given the inherent weaknesses in eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence often proves to be a more reliable and objective basis for establishing facts in a case. Circumstantial evidence refers to indirect evidence that suggests a fact by implication, such as physical evidence, forensic analysis, or patterns of behavior. (B. Garrett, Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong, Harvard University Press)(2011)). Unlike eyewitness testimony, which relies on human perception and memory, circumstantial evidence is grounded in objective, verifiable data.

For example, in a car accident case, circumstantial evidence might include traffic camera footage, skid marks on the road, vehicle damage, and accident reconstruction analysis, including black box data analysis. (NHTSA). These pieces of evidence can provide a clearer, more accurate picture of what happened than an eyewitness’s potentially flawed recollection. With a proper foundation, traffic camera footage, in particular, can capture the exact sequence of events, confirming details such as the color of traffic lights, the speed of vehicles, and the precise moment of impact. (R. Fisher & R. Geiselman, Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview, Charles C. Thomas Publisher)(1992)).

Circumstantial evidence is also less susceptible to the influences that can distort eyewitness testimony. It does not rely on human memory, which can fade or change over time. Instead, it is based on tangible, physical evidence that can be analyzed and interpreted by experts. (S. Goudge, Inquiry into pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario: Report, Queen’s Printer for Ontario)(2008)). This makes circumstantial evidence particularly valuable in cases where eyewitness testimony is contradictory or absent.

Why Circumstantial Evidence Is Sometimes Preferred

In many legal proceedings, circumstantial evidence is preferred over eyewitness testimony because it provides a more consistent and reliable basis for establishing facts. While eyewitnesses can provide valuable context and insight, their accounts are often subject to inaccuracies and biases that can undermine their reliability. (E. Loftus & J. Palmer, Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589)(1974)). Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, is typically grounded in objective data that can be independently verified and corroborated by other evidence. (P. Cassell, Freeing the innocent: A critique of the post-conviction DNA testing statute, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14(2), 69-72)(2001)).

Moreover, circumstantial evidence can often paint a more comprehensive picture of an event than eyewitness testimony alone. For instance, in a hit-and-run case, eyewitnesses might only remember seeing a car speeding away from the scene. However, circumstantial evidence such as paint chips from the suspect’s vehicle, surveillance footage, and cell phone records can provide critical information that helps identify the driver and prove their involvement in the crime. (R. Fisher & R. Geiselman, Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview, Charles C. Thomas Publisher)(1992)).

Circumstantial Evidence and Abraham Lincoln

Even Abraham Lincoln, one of the most revered figures in American history and a skilled attorney, recognized the power of circumstantial evidence. He once remarked, “Circumstantial evidence is sometimes very convincing, as when you find a trout in the milk.” (B. Garrett, Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong.” Harvard University Press)(2011)). This famous quote illustrates Lincoln’s belief that indirect evidence can often be more persuasive and reliable than direct testimony. In this analogy, finding a trout in a container of milk would be strong circumstantial evidence that the milk had been tampered with—far more convincing than simply relying on someone’s word.

Lincoln’s reliance on circumstantial evidence is further exemplified in one of his most famous legal defenses, the 1858 “Almanac Trial.” Lincoln defended a man accused of murder, whose conviction seemed certain based on the testimony of an eyewitness who claimed to have seen the crime in the moonlight. Lincoln, however, used an almanac to demonstrate that the moon was in a position that would have made it impossible for the witness to see the events as described. By focusing on the circumstantial evidence—the phase and position of the moon—Lincoln was able to discredit the eyewitness testimony, ultimately securing his client’s acquittal. (B. Garrett, Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong.” Harvard University Press)(2011)). This case is a classic example of how circumstantial evidence can be more reliable than eyewitness accounts, especially when the latter are flawed or influenced by external factors.

Circumstantial Evidence at Trial

“One interesting case that we tried before a jury involved the use of circumstantial evidence to prove that a baseball struck our client, despite there being no witnesses who could actually testify about seeing the ball exit the batting cage and strike my client. The cage, constructed of nylon netting, had been poorly maintained, with large holes that were big enough for a baseball to escape. Our client was seated nearby, watching a baseball game when she suddenly felt a ball strike her in the side. Seconds later, a young man emerged from the cage to retrieve the errant ball. Even though numerous people were present at the field that day, not a single person saw the ball leave the cage. However, by presenting photos of the deteriorated netting and the plaintiff’s testimony, we argued to the jury that it was reasonable to infer the ball had indeed escaped from the cage and struck our client. This somewhat unusual case highlights the power of circumstantial evidence in filling in the gaps where direct evidence is unavailable. It also underscores how circumstantial evidence allows jurors to apply their own common sense to the facts, leading them to logical conclusions that support the truth.” – John Malm

Conclusion

While eyewitness testimony is almost always a key element in proving a legal case, its inherent unreliability has led to a growing recognition of the importance of circumstantial evidence. By relying on objective, verifiable information, circumstantial evidence can provide an unfailing foundation for establishing the truth. As legal standards continue to evolve, including the growing use of video evidence, a jury’s preference for circumstantial evidence over eyewitness testimony is likely to become even more pronounced, better ensuring that justice is served based on the most reliable evidence available.

Contact the Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys at John J. Malm & Associates

John J. Malm & Associates is a top-rated Illinois personal injury law firm representing individuals and families who have suffered an injury or loss due to an accident. You may be entitled to a substantial settlement if you have been injured. Contact our office and speak with Attorney John J. Malm and his team.