Part A: 1) Own-race bias and cross-racial misidentifications: Research has shown that people tend to be more accurate in identifying individuals of their own race. Cross-racial misidentifications, especially in cases involving eyewitness testimonies, are common due to difficulties in accurately perceiving facial characteristics of other races. This bias contributes significantly to wrongful convictions, with 42 percent of misidentifications leading to wrongful convictions being cross-racial misidentifications. This highlights the need for awareness and addressing this issue in the criminal justice system. Jury instructions and addressing own-race bias: The article suggests that jury instructions should be implemented in cases where cross-racial witness identification is present. These instructions would educate the jury about the deficiencies and unreliability of cross-racial identifications, aiming to sensitize them to the potential bias and inaccuracies. The case of Otis Boone demonstrates how the lack of awareness of this research led to a wrongful conviction, but upon retrial with the inclusion of such instructions, Boone was acquitted. 2) Research has demonstrated that individuals tend to be more accurate in identifying those of their own race, while misidentifications across racial lines are more prone to occur. This inherent bias has led to numerous wrongful convictions, as indicated by the statistics. We need to recognize that eyewitness identifications, particularly when the individuals involved are of different races, are not foolproof. It is crucial to consider the potential for misidentifications and the influence of own-race bias. In cases like this, it is important to approach eyewitness testimonies with caution and skepticism. We must bear in mind the possibility of inaccuracies and the impact they can have on the defendant's life. To address this issue, I propose that we take into account the research and knowledge provided on own-race bias and cross-racial misidentifications. By understanding these factors, we can make a more informed judgment based on the evidence presented, while being aware of the potential limitations of eyewitness testimonies. This will help us ensure a fair trial and avoid contributing to the racial disparities and wrongful convictions that have been documented. Part B: One case that highlights the role of eyewitness memory in a false conviction is the wrongful conviction of Rafael Ruiz. Rafael was convicted in 1985 for the rape and assault of an 18-year-old woman in Manhattan, New York. The victim, B.F., initially identified Rafael as her attacker through a suggestive photographic array and a subsequent one-on-one show-up identification. However, several factors contributed to the wrongful conviction. First, the identification procedures used by Detective Christopher Beckel were unduly suggestive. The photographic array presented to B.F. contained discrepancies, such as Rafael's photograph having a different background and the other individuals having Afro hairstyles while Rafael did not. Additionally, the one-on-one show-up immediately following the photographic array reinforced B.F.'s identification of Rafael, as he was the only person present, and she was told he was "Ronnie." These suggestive identification procedures increased the likelihood of a misidentification. Furthermore, B.F.'s testimony during the trial contained inconsistencies and contradictions. She provided differing accounts of the incident and changed details, such as her boyfriend's military branch. The defense also presented evidence that contradicted B.F.'s account, including Rafael's family members testifying that he had never been known as Ronnie and had never driven a car. B.F. failed to mention important details, such as Rafael's gold tooth, which his family attested to. Overall, the case demonstrates the fallibility of eyewitness memory and the potential for misidentifications, especially when suggestive identification procedures are used. B.F.'s memory was influenced by suggestive cues and subsequent inconsistencies emerged in her testimony. Combined with the lack of corroborating evidence and the presence of exculpatory DNA evidence, it became clear that Rafael had been wrongfully convicted. This case underscores the importance of careful and unbiased investigative techniques to avoid wrongful convictions based solely on eyewitness testimony.
