DNA evidence says Williford was not at home when the attack took place while eyewitness testimony says he was there and taking part in the attack on Foxworth. I personally believe that Williford deserves a new trial because now knowing how eyewitness testimony can be changed through influences that the witness isn't even aware of, it is very likely that she remembered incorrectly. However, I am not saying that Williford is innocent and that both the DNA evidence and eyewitness testimony need to be re-evaluated to make sure nothing interfered that would skew the results. This includes taking into consideration the factors I described above to see if eyewitness testimony may be reliable. Outside of this case, I believe more information needs to be shared with the public to warn against these factors if they ever become witnesses to a crime to avoid prosecuting innocents. We also need to train officers to avoid telling or showing a witness anything that could alter his or her memory and provide false testimony. In conclusion, Williford should get a new trial and more evidence should be presented and old evidence should be re-evaluated to make sure it is accurate and information should be shared with the public and law enforcement about factors that could cause false memories , Therefore