Imagine that you are on a jury and you hear the testimony of an eyewitness who says that the accused person is guilty. You would probably vote to  _ don't you think? Well, more often than not, you'd be wrong. A few years ago, an experiment was done on an evening news show on WNBC in prefix = st1 /New York. Viewers were shown a film of what seemed to be a mugging. In this simulation, a man snatched a woman's purse. He then knocked her down and ran face forward at the camera so that the viewers got a good look at him. Viewers were then shown a lineup of six men. They were asked to decide if the mugger was in the lineup and, if so, to tell which one he was. In effect, then, they had seven choices. The suspect was either one of the six or he wasn't even in the lineup. Of the 2,145 people who called up to respond, 1,843 were wrong. That means about one in seven was right. This is what you'd expect from random choice. Eyewitness accounts can be the most convincing evidence presented to a jury. Yet we are finding out that such accounts can be faulty. Something is just wrong. Why is this so? Recent findings have removed doubts on whether memory can last long. We also know that it can be changed by things such as leading questions. Mistaken eyewitness accounts are common. They are also the major cause of innocent persons being convicted in the United States. Of the people who called up to respond,   _  .
half of them were right 2,145 were on a jury six out of seven were wrong 1,843 made seven choices