A college professor’s testimony about memory retention was used Thursday to question the reliability of eyewitness testimony used in Marvin Williford’s 2004 murder conviction in a North Chicago case.
Williford was convicted of murder for setting aflame Delwin Foxworth, of North Chicago, in 2000 and is seeking a new trial. Foxworth died in a nursing home two years later.
In requesting the retrial, defense attorneys stressed the absence of a DNA profile for Williford in DNA samples taken from the scene. But during the second day of a hearing on the petition for a new trial Thursday, the defense focus changed to the testimony of a woman who was present during the attack and identified Williford before and during the jury trial.
Under questioning by defense attorney David Owens, Geoffrey Loftus, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle, said he had read transcripts of the event and described factors that could have resulted in a false identification from the witness.
Loftus described his views on the process of how people create and retain memory from the time when they witness an event through a period of “post-event information” and time passage to a point at which they may relate their memory.
He said both studies and exonerations in actual criminal cases have shown that witnesses have misidentified offenders even though they may believe they are relating their actual memory.
Loftus said factors such as stress, focus and post-event information such as newspaper accounts and suspect pictures can all embellish or tarnish the way people remember incidents.
In the case of Foxworth’s attack, Loftus said, a normal person’s first focus would be on surviving the event, such as thinking about possible escape plans.
He also said “weapon focus” can distract from retaining identification memories, in this case stating that a witness might be concerned about the board being used to beat Foxworth and the gas can used to set him on fire.
“Certainly dangerous weapons,” Loftus said.
Loftus also said the number of alleged perpetrators also divides the attention of a witness. Officials have said Williford and two unidentified males were involved in the incident at a home in North Chicago.
Under questioning from Owens, Loftus said that because the witness was shown a picture of Williford before she picked him out of a photo array, she could potentially have created a false memory involving the picture.
“Post-event information could have caused the basis of the identification,” he said.
“Is it fair to say her memory (could have been) contaminated?” Owens asked.
“Yes,” Loftus responded.
In cross examination, Assistant State’s Attorney Ari Fisz cited police reports and trial transcripts in which the witness testified she had seen Williford’s face several times in well-lit situations during the attack. He asked Loftus whether that testimony changed his opinions on the case, and he said “no,” because it assumed she was remembering the event correctly.
In terms of focus and the number of people present, Loftus conceded under cross-examination that Williford was described as the leader of the attack in police reports and trial testimony, as opposed to the other two men present.
Fisz showed Loftus the picture the witness was shown before picking Williford out of a photo array twice over a period of two years, and then asked Loftus to pick Williford from the same array a moment after seeing the picture the witness had been shown. Loftus selected the wrong picture but then stated he had very low facial identification abilities.
More Top Picks Best Magnifying Lamps For Seniors
Loftus said he makes $200,000 to $250,000 a year testifying about memory in civil and criminal cases, almost always on behalf of defense attorneys. But Loftus said he does not believe he views the cases from a defense point of view and that he believes he is impartial.
A third hearing date is scheduled next week, but officials said it may be postponed due to availability of witnesses and other issues.
Owens has maintained that due to a lack of physical evidence, including a profile identifying Williford among the DNA samples at the scene of the crime, Williford’s conviction should be vacated.
Fisz has said Williford was not convicted on DNA evidence and that the eyewitness testimony, as well as evidence of a motive in the case — money owed to Williford by Foxworth — helped jurors reach what he believes is the correct verdict.
Williford is serving an 80-year prison term for the slaying.
Twitter @jimnewton5