Many of us may have memories of our past that we think are 100% valid, but in fact, are generally not accurate recollections of what actually happened. Because of this, one must wonder if the testimonies of eyewitnesses can be considered valid.
Here is a link to an article about false memories and eyewitnesses. The article discusses the idea that it is easy to implant false memories into people to make them remember what certain people want them to remember.
The testimonies of eyewitnesses heavily influence juries, yet they are rarely accurate. The memory of the witness is almost never completely true because when witnessing a crime, it is hard for the witness to calm his or herself down so that they can take mental notes of everything about the criminal/scene of the crime. Also if a weapon is involved, that makes it even harder for a witness to concentrate, because they're eyes will be drawn to the weapon.
Not only can eyewitness testimonies be unclear and hazy because of the reasons mentioned above, but when being questioned by certain people, the questions they are asked can influence and reconstruct their memories to what the interrogator wants.
Because of these reasons, the justice system isn't always right, but sometimes about who has the better psychologist to influence the court.