Are eyewitnesses certain that what they remember is true?

An eyewitness can tell the truth, believe every word they say and still send an innocent person to prison. A new study by Stephen Charman from FIU’s Department of Psychology takes on a question that has challenged the justice system for decades: can we rely on eyewitnesses to help identify the person responsible for a crime?

Simply put, we can — and we cannot.

His research suggests that part of the answer lies in how accurately witnesses remember the identification process. Before a lineup, witnesses are given instructions about what they are about to see and how they should make their choice. They may also receive feedback on their performance once the lineup is over. Questions may arise if a witness can’t remember what they were told, what happened during the lineup or what happened afterward.

The study found that witnesses remember feedback better after making an identification. Charman says this matters because a witness may be asked to describe the identification long after it happened, sometimes during later stages of a criminal case, and by then, some details may have faded. Even memories that seem clear can be influenced by the way people are asked about them. Leading questions — questions that suggest a particular answer — can change what witnesses report remembering, especially when their original memory is already weak.

The study suggests video recording identification procedures, so there is a record of what actually happened. Without a recording, the legal system may have to rely on the witness’s memory, which may not always tell the full story. A witness can genuinely believe they are remembering what happened, while their memory may be a mixture of what they experienced, what they later inferred and what they were led to believe.

“When misinformation gets incorporated into your memory, it becomes almost indistinguishable from it,” Charman explained. “People are not necessarily aware of how their memory was influenced in the past. It feels real to them.”

A witness may forget exactly what an officer said before the lineup or what happened immediately after it. Later, when they are asked about the procedure, they may unknowingly fill in those missing pieces with what they think probably happened. They’re not trying to mislead anyone. They may simply be making sense of an experience they no longer remember clearly.

“Defense attorneys want to know if the line of procedure was done correctly, because if it wasn’t, that might be an explanation for why their client was identified,” Charman said. “Attorneys like witnesses to be on the stand. It provides them with a defense strategy.”

The opposite can happen, too. A witness might remember that something went wrong when it actually didn’t, making an identification seem questionable even though the procedure was conducted properly. In either case, decision-makers could be working with a version of events that differs from what actually happened.

Ultimately, Charman’s research is not about dismissing eyewitnesses. It is about recognizing the limits of memory — and finding ways to preserve what actually happened before memory has a chance to change it.