Why eyewitnesses get it wrong - Scott Fraser

Summary

In 1991, a father was murdered in Lynwood, California, and a teenager, Francisco CIO, was quickly convicted based on eyewitness accounts. Despite no physical evidence and CIO's alibi, he was sentenced to life. Years later, a forensic neurophysiologist's examination of the case revealed the fallibility of eyewitness memory and poor lighting conditions at the crime scene, leading to a retrial and CIO's release. This case underscores the importance of integrating science into the legal system and the caution needed in relying on memory.

Takeaways

• 🗓️ The murder case took place on January 18th, 1991, in Lynwood, California.
• 🔍 The police quickly identified Francisco CIO as the suspect based on a photo array shown to a teenager.
• 👨‍⚖️ Despite no gun, vehicle, or driver being identified, CIO was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
• 🕵️‍♂️ The Innocence Project's research highlighted the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, which was a key factor in CIO's wrongful conviction.
• 🧠 Human memory is prone to errors, especially when reconstructing memories from partial information.
• 🌙 The crime occurred in poor lighting conditions, which was crucial for evaluating the accuracy of the eyewitnesses' identifications.
• 🔦 A forensic neurophysiologist was brought in to analyze the lighting conditions and their impact on the reliability of the identifications.
• 📸 The expert conducted a scene reconstruction, showing that the lighting was much poorer than initially reported, affecting the ability to identify the shooter.
• 👨‍🏫 The judge was persuaded to personally witness a reenactment of the crime, which influenced his decision to grant a retrial.
• 🏆 The case was a victory for integrating scientific evidence into the legal process and highlighted the importance of critical examination of eyewitness testimony.
• 📚 The speaker emphasized the need for more scientific literacy among legal professionals and the importance of cautious interpretation of memory.

Q & A

What was the date and location of the murder mentioned in the script?

The murder occurred on January 18th, 1991, in a small bedroom community of Lynwood, California, which is a few miles southeast of Los Angeles.

Who was identified as the suspect in the murder case?

Francisco CIO, a 17-year-old kid who lived about two or three blocks away from where the shooting occurred, was identified as the suspect.

How quickly did the police identify the suspect after the shooting?

The police identified Francisco CIO as the suspect in less than 24 hours after the shooting.

What was the outcome of Francisco CIO's trial based on the initial investigation?

Francisco CIO was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment based on the initial investigation and testimonies from the teenagers who identified him.

Why was Francisco CIO's case reconsidered for a retrial?

The case was reconsidered for a retrial due to decades of scientific research indicating the fallibility of human memory and eyewitness identifications, as well as the lack of physical evidence such as the murder weapon or the identification of the shooter's vehicle.

What is the significance of the Innocence Project's work in the context of this case?

The Innocence Project's work highlights the issue of wrongful convictions based on eyewitness identifications, which is relevant to Francisco CIO's case since his conviction was primarily based on such testimonies.

How does the concept of 'the brain abhors a vacuum' relate to the case?

The concept refers to the brain's tendency to fill in missing information from memory, which can lead to reconstructed memories. This is significant in the case as it questions the reliability of the teenagers' identifications of Francisco CIO.

What role did the forensic neurophysiologist play in the retrial petition?

The forensic neurophysiologist provided expertise on eyewitness memory and identification, and also on human night vision, which was crucial to analyze the lighting conditions at the time of the crime, casting doubt on the reliability of the identifications made under those conditions.

What was the lighting condition during the crime according to the teenagers and the police?

Both the investigating officers and the teenagers testified that the lighting was good at the crime scene during the shooting.

How did the forensic neurophysiologist challenge the claimed lighting conditions at the crime scene?

The forensic neurophysiologist conducted a scene reconstruction with photometers and other measures of illumination and color perception, demonstrating that the lighting was, in fact, poor, which contradicted the testimonies and raised questions about the accuracy of the identifications.

What was the judge's reaction to the reenactment of the crime scene, and what was the outcome?

After the reenactment, which showed the poor lighting conditions and the impossibility of accurate identification, the judge granted the petition for a retrial and released Francisco CIO to aid in the preparation of his defense. The prosecution later decided not to retry him.

What broader implications does this case have for the integration of science in the courtroom?

The case highlights the need for more scientific rigor in the courtroom, suggesting that law schools should incorporate more science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education to prepare future judges and legal professionals to better understand and apply scientific evidence.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 Wrongful Conviction and Eyewitness Fallibility

The script recounts a murder case from 1991 in Lynwood, California, where a father was shot and killed. The police quickly identified a suspect, Francisco CIO, based on the identification by one of the teenagers present at the scene. Despite the lack of physical evidence and CIO's alibi, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case highlights the fallibility of eyewitness identification, which is a significant factor in many wrongful convictions. The Innocence Project's research is mentioned, showing that over 70% of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence involved mistaken eyewitness testimony.

05:03

🧠 The Flaws of Human Memory and Reconstructed Memories

The script delves into the science of human memory, explaining how the brain stores fragmented information and fills in missing details unconsciously, leading to reconstructed memories. This phenomenon, combined with the known unreliability of eyewitness testimony, prompted a group of appeal attorneys to seek a retrial for Francisco CIO. The speaker, a forensic neurophysiologist, was brought in to provide expert testimony on eyewitness memory and identification, as well as on human night vision, which is crucial for understanding the conditions at the time of the crime.

10:05

🌙 The Impact of Lighting Conditions on Eyewitness Testimony

The speaker discusses the importance of lighting conditions on the night of the crime, which was initially reported as good by the investigating officers and the teenagers. However, through scientific analysis of the lunar and solar data, it was determined that the lighting was, in fact, poor, with no natural light and only artificial sources available. The speaker conducted a scene reconstruction to measure illumination and color perception, which showed that the conditions would have significantly impaired the ability to accurately identify faces, thus casting doubt on the teenagers' identifications.

15:06

📚 The Integration of Science in the Legal System and the Quest for Justice

The script concludes with the judge's decision to grant a retrial and release Francisco CIO, based on the scientific evidence presented. The speaker reflects on the historical tension between science and law and the challenges of integrating scientific evidence into courtroom proceedings. The case serves as a call for increased scientific literacy among legal professionals and judges, and a reminder of the importance of critical examination of eyewitness testimony and memory. The speaker also emphasizes the need for caution in relying on personal memories, as they are often reconstructed and not always accurate.

Keywords

💡Eyewitness Identification

Eyewitness identification refers to the process where a person who has witnessed a crime attempts to identify the perpetrator. In the video, it is a central issue because the conviction of Francisco CIO was primarily based on the eyewitness accounts of teenagers, which were later questioned due to the fallibility of human memory and the conditions under which the identifications were made.

💡Innocence Project

The Innocence Project is an organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing. The script mentions that the Innocence Project has documented over 250 cases of wrongful convictions, many based on eyewitness testimony, illustrating the unreliability of such evidence and the need for scientific scrutiny in the legal system.

💡Human Memory

Human memory is the cognitive process of encoding, storing, and retrieving information. The video discusses how human memory can be fallible, particularly in high-stress situations like witnessing a crime. The teenagers' identifications were influenced by their memories, which were later contested due to the understanding that memory is reconstructive and can be influenced by post-event information.

💡Reconstructed Memory

Reconstructed memory is the phenomenon where the brain fills in gaps in memory with inferred or imagined information. The video emphasizes this concept to explain why eyewitnesses can be unreliable, as their memories of the crime were likely reconstructed with details that were not originally encoded, leading to potential misidentification.

💡Forensic Neuropsychology

Forensic Neuropsychology is the application of neuropsychological principles to legal contexts. The speaker, a forensic neurophysiologist, uses their expertise in this field to evaluate the reliability of eyewitness memory and identification in the case of Francisco CIO, highlighting the importance of incorporating scientific knowledge into legal proceedings.

💡Night Vision

Night vision refers to the ability to see in low-light conditions. The video discusses the importance of understanding human night vision in the context of the crime, which occurred at night. The expert testimony revealed that the lighting conditions were poor, significantly affecting the eyewitnesses' ability to accurately identify the shooter.

💡Civil Twilight

Civil twilight is the period of time in the evening after sunset or in the morning before sunrise when there is still enough light for outdoor activities without artificial lighting. The video mentions that the crime occurred well past civil twilight, indicating very low light conditions, which challenges the initial police report that claimed the lighting was good.

💡Photometry

Photometry is the science of measuring light. In the video, the expert uses photometers to measure the lighting conditions at the crime scene, providing empirical evidence that contradicts the initial police report and the teenagers' testimonies about being able to see well, thus challenging the reliability of their identifications.

💡Depth of Field

Depth of field is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that are in acceptably sharp focus. The video explains that under the low-light conditions, the depth of field would have been very limited, meaning that the ability to discern details, such as facial features, would have been severely compromised.

💡Exoneration

Exoneration is the act of clearing someone of an accusation or a legal charge. The video concludes with the judge granting a retrial and releasing Francisco CIO, effectively exonerating him from the crime based on the new evidence and expert testimony that questioned the reliability of the initial eyewitness identifications.

💡Judicial System

The judicial system refers to the institutions and procedures through which judgments are made about legal matters. The video discusses the flaws within the judicial system, particularly regarding the handling of eyewitness testimony and the need for incorporating scientific evidence to prevent wrongful convictions.

Highlights

A murder occurred in Lynwood, California, in 1991, where a father was shot and killed by a passing car.

Police quickly identified a 17-year-old, Francisco CIO, as the suspect based on eyewitness accounts.

Despite no physical evidence linking him to the crime, Francisco was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The conviction was largely based on the fallible nature of eyewitness identifications.

250-280 documented cases of wrongful convictions due to eyewitness misidentifications have been recorded by the Innocence Project.

Human memory is fallible, and the brain fills in missing information, leading to reconstructed memories.

A group of appeal attorneys, led by Ellen Edgar, sought a retrial for Francisco CIO.

A forensic neurophysiologist was retained to provide expert testimony on eyewitness memory and night vision.

The crime scene was poorly lit, which was critical for the reliability of the eyewitnesses' identifications.

The forensic expert conducted a scene reconstruction to measure lighting and color perception conditions.

The judge was invited to witness a reenactment of the crime to understand the limitations of visibility.

The judge granted a retrial and released Francisco CIO to aid in his own defense preparation.

The prosecution decided not to retry the case, leading to Francisco's freedom after 21 years.

The case highlights the importance of integrating science into the legal system for a fair trial.

The need for more scientific literacy among law professionals is emphasized to prevent wrongful convictions.

The accuracy of memories is not measured by their vividness or certainty, caution is needed in their reliability.

Transcripts

[Music]

[Applause]

the murder happened a little over 21

years

ago January the 18th

1991 in a

small bedroom community

of Lynwood California just a few miles

Southeast of Los

Angeles father came out was

house to tell his teenage son and his

five friends that it was time for them

to stop horsing around on the front lawn

and on the sidewalk to get home finish

their schoolwork prepare themselves for

bed and as the father was administering

these instructions a car drove by slowly

and just after it passed the father and

the teenagers a hand went out from the

front passenger window and Bam

Bam killing the father and the car sped

off the

police investigating officers were

amazingly

efficient they considered all the usual

culprits and in less than 24 hours they

had selected their

suspect Francisco CIO a 17-year-old kid

who lived about two or three blocks away

from where the shooting

occurred they found photos of him they

prepared a photo array and the day after

the shooting they showed it to one of

the teenagers and he said that's the

picture that's the shooter I saw that

killed the

father that was all a prary hearing

judge had to listen to to bind Mr CIO

over to stand trial for first-degree

murder in the investigation that

followed before the actual trial each of

the other five teenagers was

shown photographs the same photo

array the picture that we best can

determine was probably the one that they

were shown in the photo aray is in your

bottom leftand corner of these mug

shots uh the reason we're not sure

absolutely is because of

the nature of evidence pre preservation

in our Jud judicial system but that's

another whole tedex talk for

later so at the actual

trial all six of the teenagers

testified and indicated the

identifications they had made in the

photo

array he was convicted he was sentenced

to life

imprisonment and transport fored to

fullon

prison so what's

wrong straightforward Fair trial full

investigation oh yes no gun was ever

found no vehicle was ever identified as

being the one in which the shooter had

extended his

arm and no person was ever charged with

being the driver of the shooters

vehicle and Mr cio's alibi

which of those parents here in the room

might not

lie concerning the whereabouts of your

son or

daughter in an investigation of a

killing second to

prison adamantly insisting on his

innocence which he has consistently for

21

years so what's the

problem

the problems actually for this kind of

case come manyfold from Decades of

scientific

research involving human

memory first of all we have all the

statistical analysis from the Innocence

Project work where we know that we have

what 250 280 documented cases now where

people have been wrongfully convicted

and subsequently exonerated some from

death

row on the basis of later DNA

analysis and you know that over 34 of

all of those cases of

exoneration involved only eyewitness

identification testimony during the

trial that convicted

them we know that eyewitness

identifications are

fallible the other comes from an

interesting aspect of human memory

that's related to various brain

functions but I can sum up for the sake

of brevity here in a simple line the

brain abhors a

vacuum under the best of observation

conditions the absolute best we only

detect encode and store in our brains

bits and pieces of the entire experience

in front of us and they're stored in

different parts of the brain so now when

it's important for us to be able to

recall what it was that we

experienced we have an incomplete we

have a partial

store and what

happens below awareness with no

requirement for any kind of motivated

processing the brain fills in

information that was not there not

originally stored from inference from

speculation from sources of information

that came to you as the Observer after

the observation but it happens with

without awareness such that you don't

aren't even cognizant of occurring it's

called reconstructed memories it happens

to us in all the aspects of our life all

the time it was those two considerations

among others reconstructed memory the

fact about the eyewitness infall

fallibility that was part of the

instigation for a group of appeal

attorneys led by an amazing lawyer named

Ellen Edgar to pull their experience and

their talents together and petition the

superior court for a retrial for

Francisco

CIO they retain me as a forensic

neurophysiologist because I had

expertise in eyewitness memory and

identification which obviously makes

sense for this case right but also

because I have expertise and testify

about the nature of human night

vision but what's got to do with

this well when you read through the case

materials in this Kio case one of the

things that suddenly strikes you is that

the investigating officers said the

lighting was good at the crime scene at

the shooting all the teenagers testified

during the trial that they could see

very

well but this occurred in mid January in

the northern hemisphere at 700 p.m. at

night so when I do the did the

calculations for the lunar data and the

solar data at that location on Earth at

the time of the incident of the shooting

all right it was well past the end of

Civil Twilight and there was no moon up

the night so all the light in this area

from the Sun of the moon is what you see

on the screen right

here the only Lighting in that area had

to come from artificial sources and

that's where I go out and I do the

actual reconstruction of the scene with

photometers with various measures of

Illumination and various other measures

of of U color perception along with

special cameras and high-speed film

right take all the measurements and

record them right and then take

photographs and this is what the scene

looked like at the time of the shooting

from the position of the

teenagers looking at the car going by

and shooting this is looking directly

across the street from where they were

standing

standing remember the investigating

officer report said the lighting was

good teenagers said they could see very

well this is looking down to the east

where the shooting vehicle sped

off and this is the lighting directly

behind the father and the

teenagers as you can see it is at best

poor no one's going to call this

well-lit Good Ting and in fact as nice

as these pictures are and the reason we

take them is I knew I was going to have

to testify in the court and a picture is

worth more than a thousand words when

you're trying to communicate numbers

abstract Concepts like Lux the

international measurement of

Illumination the is Shahara color color

perception test values right uh when you

present those to people who are not

well-versed in those aspects of Science

and that uh they become salamanders in

the Noonday sun it's like talking about

the tangent of the visual angle all

right their eyes just glaze over all

right a good forensic expert also has to

be a good educator a good communicator

and that's part of the reason why we

take the pictures to show not only the

where the light sources are and what we

call The Spill the distribution but also

so that it's easier for the triar fact

to understand the

circumstances so these are some of the

pictures that in fact I use when I

testify but more importantly were to me

as a scientist are those readings the

photometer readings which I can then

convert into actual predictions of the

visual capability of the human eye under

those

circumstances and from my readings that

I recorded at the scene under the same

solar and lunar conditions at the same

time so on so forth right I could

predict that there would be no reliable

color perception which is crucial for

face

recognition and that there would be only

topic Vision which mean there'd be very

little resolution what we call boundary

or Edge detection and that furthermore

because the eyes would have been totally

dilated under this light the depth of

field the distance at which you can

focus and see details would have been

less than 18 in

away I testified to that to the court

and while the judge was very attentive

it had been a very very long hearing for

this petition for a retrial

and as a result I noticed out of the

Cora eye that I thought that maybe the

judge was going to need a little more of

a nudge than just more

numbers and here I became a bit

audacious and I turned and I asked the

judge I said your honor I think you

should go out and look at the scene

yourself now I may have used a tone

which was more like a dare than a

request but

nonetheless it's to this man's credit

and his courage that he said yes I

will a shocker in American Jewish

Prudence so in fact we found the same

identical conditions we reconstructed

the entire thing again he came out with

an entire Brigade of Sheriff's officers

to protect him in this in this community

all

right we had him stand actually slightly

in the street so closer to the suspect

vehicle shooter vehicle than the actual

teenagers were so he stood a few feet

from the curb toward the middle of the

street we had a car that came

by same identical car as as described by

the teenagers it had a driver and a

passenger and after the car had passed

the judge

by the passenger extended his hand

pointed it back to the judge

as the concar continued on just as the

teenagers had described it right now he

didn't use a real gun in his hand so he

had a black object in his hand that was

similar to the gun that was described he

pointed by and this is what the judge

saw this is the car 30 ft away from the

judge there's an arm sticking out of the

passenger's side and pointed back at you

that's 30 ft away so my teenager said

that that in fact the car was 15 ft away

when it shot okay there's 15

ft at this point I became a little

concerned this judge is someone you

never want to play poker

with I he was totally stoic I couldn't

see a twitch of his eyebrow I couldn't

see the slightest Bend of his head I had

no sense of how he was reacting to this

and after he looked at this reenact

he turned to me and he says is there

anything else you want me to look

at I said your honor and I don't know

whether I was emboldened by the

scientific measurements that I had in my

pocket and my knowledge that they are

accurate or whether it was just sheer

stupidity which is what the defense

lawyers thought when they heard me

say yes your honor I want you to stand

right there and I want the car to go

around the block

again and I want it to come and I want

it to

stop right in front of you 3 to four

feet away and I want the passenger to

extend his hand with a black object

point right at you and you can look at

it as long as you

want and that's what he

saw you'll notice which was also in my

test report all the dominant lighting is

coming from the north side which means

that the shooter's face would have been

photo uded would have been back lit

furthermore the roof of the car is

causing what we call a shadow Cloud

inside the car which is making it darker

right and this is 3 to4 ft

away why did I take the risk I knew the

depth of field was 18 in or

less 3 to four feet it might as well

have been a football field away

this is what he saw went

back there was a few more days of

evidence that was heard at the end of it

he made the Judgment that he was going

to Grant the petition for a

retrial and further more he released Mr

CIO so that he could Aid in the

preparation of his own defense if the

prosecution decided to retry

him which they decided not to he is not

a Freed

Man this is this is him embracing his uh

grandmother-in-law

he his girlfriend was pregnant when he

went to trial right and he they she had

a little baby

boy he and his son are both attending

Cal State Long Beach right now taking

classes

and what does what does this

example what's important to keep in mind

for

ourselves first of all there's a long

history of antipathy between science and

the law in American Juris

Prudence I could regil you with horror

stories of

ignorance over Decades of experience as

a forensic

expert of just trying to get science

into the courtroom the opposing Council

always fight it and oppose

it one suggestion is that all of us

become much more attuned to the

necessity through policy through

procedures to get more science in the

courtroom and I think one large step

toward that is more requirements with

all due respect to the law schools of

science technology

engineering mathematics for anyone going

into the law because they become the

judges think about how we select our

judges in this country it's very

different than most other cultures all

right the other one is I want to suggest

the caution that all of us have to have

I constantly have to remind myself about

just how accurate are the memories that

we know are true that we believe

in there is Decades of

research examples and examples of cases

like this where

individuals really really believe none

of those teenagers right who identified

him right thought that they were picking

the wrong person none of them thought

they couldn't see the person's face we

all have to be very careful all our

memories are reconstructed

memories they are the product of what we

originally experienced and everything

that's happened afterwards their

Dynamic they're made valuable they're

volatile and as a result we all need to

remember to be

cautious that the accuracy of our

memories is not measured in how Vivid

they

are nor how certain you are that they're

correct thank

[Applause]

[Music]

you