Cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus explains that, in 1970, Edmond D. Jackson was convicted of murdering a New York bartender. The murder occurred as fifty customers tried to take cover. Loftus stated, “The subsequent investigation focused on four witnesses who looked at numerous mug shots and said one looked like the gunman” (Loftus xi). The defendant was subsequently convicted only because these witnesses, who had only seen the gunman in the bar for a few seconds, identified him. While in prison, Jackson prayed and prayed for his release, prayers that went unanswered for nearly eight years. In August 1978, the United States Court of Appeals overturned Jackson's conviction. With great appreciation, Loftus explained that, "The court found that the eyewitness testimony presented by the prosecution was so tainted by the suggestive procedures of the police investigators that its admission into evidence against Jackson constituted a denial of due process" ( Loftus xi). Such devastating errors by eyewitnesses are not uncommon, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. The Innocence Project uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongly convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that “73% of the two hundred and thirty-nine convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony” (Loftus xi). A third of these overturned cases relied on the testimony of two or more erroneous eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong? This article will identify a theoretical framework that considers eyewitness testimony…the focus of the article…meaning” (Wade 904). In other words, people store information in the way that makes the most sense to them. Additionally, Wade introduces the idea that an eyewitness's focus is solely on the weapon the offender is using. “In a crime involving a gun, it is not unusual for a witness to be able to describe the gun in much more detail than the person holding it” (Wade 904). In this reference, Wade acknowledges that crimes involving guns typically have fewer people who remember the details enough to be considered reliable witnesses. To conclude, the researchers use a three-step process that demonstrates that eyewitness testimony is not an ideal situation. A number of warning signs during eyewitness identification demonstrate that eyewitnesses are not necessarily accurate and finally that many psychological factors can influence eyewitness testimony.