There have been several cases where the testimony of an eyewitness led to the conviction of an innocent person. In one notable case, Raymond Towler was wrongly convicted in 1981 of the rape, kidnapping, and assault of an 11-year-old girl based on eyewitness testimony in which the victim and other witnesses identified him from a photo. Towler was serving a life sentence and was released in 2010 after serving nearly 30 years until DNA evidence proved he had not committed the rape (Sheeran, 2010). In another case, Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl near Baltimore in 1984. Five different eyewitnesses testified that they saw him at the crime scene. After serving nine years in prison on death row, he was released and paid compensation after traces of semen found in the victim's underwear ruled him out as responsible for the crime. Although he was released, he was not formally exonerated for another decade until the real killer, Kimberly Shay Ruffner, was found. Ruffner was already incarcerated for unrelated crimes and was identified after the crime scene DNA sample was added to state and federal databases and was found to be a match for him. Despite the fact that Bloodsworth was a completely different height and weight than Ruffner, five eyewitnesses testified that they saw him at the crime scene (Marshall, 2009). Another case in which the reliability of eyewitness testimony was called into question was that of Troy Davis, who was convicted and executed for the murder of police officer Mark Allen MacPhail. Seven of the nine witnesses who testified against Davis in the shooting later recanted their testimonies (Pappas, 2011). Jason Chan, assistant professor of psychology...... middle of paper ......ggers (1972) in which the Supreme Court identified five factors to be used in determining the reliability of eyewitness identification, specifically when identification was not immediately made at the crime scene. Manson v. Brathwaite (1977) led to the Biggers-Brathwaite Factors Test, which evaluates Biggers' five factors with respect to the "corrupting" effect of any law enforcement procedure that jeopardizes "the fairness or impartiality of a procedure". If such “corrupt” effects occur due to a law enforcement officer or investigator, eyewitness identification can still be used in court if the reliability of the eyewitness identification is strong (Swanson et al., 2011). The most logical and obvious question to all these reliability issues with eyewitness testimony is what can be done to prevent further miscarriages of justice.?