During 1977, Randal Dale Adams or Mr. Adams was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a police officer in Dallas County, Texas. A supposed eyewitness, who was actually the real killer, framed Mr. Adams and received immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony. It turned out that Mr. Adams was not involved in the crime at all. The facts came to light after filmmaker Errol Morris took an interest in the case and produced a now famous documentary - The Thin Blue Line - about the case. Mr. Adams and the victim were white. Time elapsed from arrest to exoneration: 147 months. The real killer, David Ray Harris, was only sixteen years old when he shot the victim, police officer Robert Wood, during a traffic stop. Although it was mentioned that Mr. Adams and police officer Robert Wood were both white, no one can assume that this was done out of ethnic hatred because David Ray Harris was also a white male. However, this case might be a little strange since a police officer was killed by a sixteen-year-old youth who was pretending to be an eyewitness. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Eyewitness testimony is one of the factors a judge considers when making decisions in court, but it can be very unreliable especially if there is no evaluation. Forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) has become a specialty informed by research and professional guidelines. The 19 topical volumes address best practice approaches for particular types of assessments in the criminal, civil, and juvenile/family areas. There are a growing number of identified cases where citizens have been convicted of serious crimes and subsequently found innocent. In many of these cases, eyewitness identification is the only evidence linking the defendant to the crime. Because there is a substantial body of literature on mistaken beliefs, the Innocence Project was created. The goal of the Innocence Project is to use DNA evidence to uncover wrongful beliefs. This project and the evaluation of first-person eyewitness testimony before bringing it to court will establish it as a more reliable form of evidence. Millions of people have been arrested or detained, but have not yet been found guilty of a criminal offense by jury judgment. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and many states are expanding their DNA databases to include these people. One reason why large numbers of people are arrested or detained but have not yet been convicted is the testimony of eyewitnesses who said they were very confident in identifying a suspect. Innocent people have been convicted of crimes they did not commit. Conviction is the verdict that usually results when a court finds a defendant guilty of the crime. In April, the New York Times reported that the FBI had begun collecting DNA samples from individuals awaiting trial and detained immigrants. Currently, 15 states collect DNA samples from individuals awaiting trial. Law enforcement officials say expanding DNA collections will help solve more violent crimes, as well as potentially exonerate more people who have been wrongly convicted because it is more accurate than other forms of evidence. This shows that other ways can be used as forms of evidence in court cases. However, if government officials begin to evaluate eyewitness accounts, they can also be reliable forms of evidence. The malleable nature of human memory and visual perceptionmakes eyewitness testimony one of the most unreliable forms of evidence. The malleable nature of memory can convince a person that they saw something that wasn't actually there. 25% of individuals can easily be tricked into remembering events that never happened. An eyewitness can be very sure that his or her memory is accurate, which leads to misunderstandings and defendants being wrongly accused and convicted. Despite this, some drugs improve memory and could be the key to preventing wide-ranging disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Additionally, the hormones that help imprint the narrative of our life into our cells have now been identified. Eyewitness testimony may not always be one hundred percent accurate, but there will always be ways to improve their memory. Therefore, with sufficient assistance and supervision, eyewitness testimony can still be a reliable form of evidence in court trials. Nobody performs well under pressure. It is better to give eyewitness accounts more time to analyze certain events rather than end up with a fuzzy description of an incident. Providing them with enough time to review events will result in more accurate details. Further insight regarding this point is provided by the National Center for Biotechnology Information: In the eyewitness identification literature, stress and arousal at the time of coding are believed to negatively affect identification performance. This hypothesis is in contrast to findings from the field of the neurobiology of learning and memory, which show that stress and stress hormones are critically involved in the formation of long-lasting memories. This discrepancy may be related to methodological differences between the two research fields, such as the tendency to perform immediate tests or the use of very short retention intervals (1-2 hours) in eyewitness research, while neurobiology studies include at least 24 hours (National Center for Biotechnology Information). This information provides a better understanding of how stress and pressure influence eyewitness identification of events. Eyewitness accounts fail to adequately bring forward their memories and thoughts when they are stressed and under pressure. Furthermore, the National Center for Biotechnology Information also mentioned the flaw of using very short retention intervals in eyewitness research which only takes about 1 to 2 hours, when it should take at least 24 hours. This goes to show that sometimes it's not the eyewitness's fault to be wrong. Stress hormones in the human body also contribute to the factors that cause eyewitness accounts to be ambiguous in providing details or descriptions. Estimating an eyewitness's abilities before giving him or her the right to speak in a court proceeding will increase the chances of improvement. results. Court proceedings are something that should be taken seriously because people who have been accused of crimes or even called defendants fight for their civil liberties. Eyewitness testimony can be very convincing in court, but being convincing is not the same as being accurate. A government official should be sensible enough to understand whether the eyewitness is telling the truth or not. Since most of the time eyewitness testimony is not one hundred percent accurate, it is a government official's responsibility to examine an eyewitness's ability to remember and visualize events. Every person has this thing called selective attention or selective memory, that's why.