DNA evidence indicates Williford was not home when the attack occurred while eyewitness testimony says he was there and participating in the attack Foxworth attack. I personally believe that Williford deserves a new trial, because now knowing how an eyewitness' testimony can be altered by influences that the witness is not even aware of, it is very possible that she misremembered. However, I am not saying that Williford is innocent and that the DNA evidence and eyewitness accounts need to be re-evaluated to ensure that nothing intervened that could skew the results. This involves taking into consideration the factors I described earlier to see if eyewitness testimony can be trusted. Aside from this case, I believe we need to share more information with the public to warn them of these factors if they ever become a witness to a crime to avoid prosecuting innocent people. Additionally, we must train officers to avoid saying or showing a witness anything that could alter their memory and give false testimony. In conclusion, Williford should be retried and more evidence should be presented and the old evidence should be re-evaluated to ensure it is accurate and the information should be shared with the public and the forces in order about the factors that can cause false memories.