Why was Ronald Cotton misidentified as the perpetrator? What are some of the factors that contributed to Jennifer Thompson’s misidentification of her attacker? What about in the case of Steve Titus?
The correct answer and explanation is:
Correct Answer:
Ronald Cotton was misidentified as the perpetrator due to flaws in eyewitness identification, including the use of suggestive police procedures, the stress Jennifer Thompson experienced during the assault, and the confidence she developed in her identification over time. In Steve Titus’s case, he was misidentified due to the suggestiveness of police procedures and the alignment of his appearance with the victim’s memory.
Explanation (300 words):
Ronald Cotton was wrongfully convicted of rape based largely on eyewitness misidentification by Jennifer Thompson, the victim. Several psychological and procedural factors contributed to this error. First, Thompson experienced extreme stress and fear during the assault, which impaired her ability to accurately process and recall details. Research shows that high-stress situations can significantly distort memory.
Second, the police lineup procedures were flawed. When shown a photo array, Thompson selected Cotton, partly because he resembled her memory of the attacker and partly due to the subtle cues from law enforcement. After choosing Cotton from the photos, she saw him again in a physical lineup, which reinforced her choice—this is known as “confirmation bias” or “unconscious transference.” Over time, her confidence in her identification grew, even though confidence does not equal accuracy.
Similarly, Steve Titus was wrongfully convicted of rape due to eyewitness misidentification. In his case, the victim originally said Titus “looked the most like” the rapist, which is a tentative identification. However, after police and prosecution reinforced the choice and presented Titus as the main suspect, the victim’s certainty increased. This escalation of confidence, influenced by police confirmation, is a recurring problem in wrongful convictions.
Both cases highlight the fallibility of human memory and the dangers of relying heavily on eyewitness testimony without corroborating evidence. Factors like stress, suggestion, reinforcement, and repeated exposure to a suspect’s image can lead to misidentification. These cases spurred reforms in eyewitness identification procedures, such as double-blind lineups and instructions that the suspect may not be in the lineup, aiming to reduce wrongful convictions based on faulty memory.