The applications of eyewitness identification research to the courtroom

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1972 and 1977 that there are five factors that should be taken into account in evaluating the validity of eyewitness evidence. These factors are (1) the opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) length of time between the crime and the identification; (3) level of certainty of the eyewitness; (4) the accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal; and (5) the witness's degree of attention during the crime. Research results have provided clear support for the applicability of the first factor, the witness's opportunity to view the criminal. However, research findings with regard to the other four factors are either contradictory, nonsupportive, or nonexistent. Findings are reviewed in light of the race of the witness and of the suspect, a potentially important factor not addressed by the Supreme Court, but often mentioned by attorneys and law enforcement officers. The possible contribution of racial attitudes and amount of interracial experience to the “own-race bias” are discussed, as is the possible influence of race on the “fairness” of lineups. Several areas for which application of eyewitness-identification research to the legal system have been suggested are reviewed. These include improving eyewitness identification procedures, increasing legal safeguards for suspects, selection of jurors who do not “overbelieve” eyewitness evidence, use of cross-examination to ferret out errors in identifications, the judge's cautionary instructions to the jury, and expert testimony by researchers. The legitimacy of expert testimony and its impact are discussed.