Eyewitness Identification Evidence Research Articles

Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluation commonsense evaluations.

Although eyewitness identifications are among the most common forms of evidence presented in criminal trials, both archival studies and psychological research suggest that eyewitnesses are frequently mistaken in their identifications (B. L. Cutler & S. D. Penrod, 1995). In recognition of this problem, the legal system has established a number of safeguards to protect defendants from erroneous convictions resulting from mistaken identifications. These safeguards are based on assumptions regarding attorney, judge, and juror commonsense knowledge of the factors influencing eyewitness identification accuracy. This article addresses the validity of these assumptions by examining the role of commonsense knowledge in attorney, judge, and juror evaluations of eyewitness identification evidence. It concludes that, although these safeguards may not be as effective as the legal system intended them to be, there are a number of practices and policies that may be implemented to safeguard defendants further.

Maximizing the Utility of Eyewitness Identification Evidence

affect eyewitness accuracy and are under the control of the criminal jus tice system have been labeled sys tem variables. Examples of system variables include instructions to eye witnesses, question formats, and the lineup procedure. Eyewitness researchers use slides, videotapes, or live staged events to create eyewitness experiences for unsuspecting people. These eyewit nesses can then be tested under con ditions controlling for system vari ables to determine the best ways to maximize eyewitness accuracy. The discovery of system variables that af fect eyewitness accuracy can yield a technology that can be applied to actual criminal cases for the purpose of minimizing eyewitness error.1 Our emphasis in this review is on police lineups, with particular con cern for the system variables that contribute to accurate and false identifications. Conducting a lineup is analogous to conducting a psychology experi ment.2 In a psychology experiment, the researcher begins with a hypoth esis, selects or creates an appropri ate set of stimuli, creates a design, places in motion a carefully crafted set of procedures, records the sub ject's responses, and reinterprets the hypothesis in light of the obtained data. A police investigator is like a researcher who has a hypothesis (that the suspect is the actual cul prit), selects an appropriate set of stimuli (selects lineup members), creates a design (e.g., places the sus pect in Position 4), initiates a proce dure (e.g., gives instructions to the eyewitness), records the subject's re sponses (e.g., identification of the suspect or not), and then reconsiders the original hypothesis in light of the

How Police Officers Construct Lineups: A National Survey

In criminal investigations, considerable weight is given to eyewitness identification evidence. In some cases, like assault and robbery, this evidence may be the only kind available. Over the last two decades, considerable research has been aimed at the factors that cause identification errors. However, virtually all of this work has involved undergraduates and naive lay persons as subjects. There is little known on what police officers do in the course of their work. The present research investigates the procedures that police investigators employ when they construct live and photographic lineups. Surveys were sent to 500 U.S. police jurisdictions along with a cover letter requesting that it be completed by the person most experienced in constructing lineups; 220 were returned. On average, the respondents had 12 years experience as police officers and had constructed a mean of 329 lineups (89 live, 240 photographic). For many items, the results were consistent with those of previous laboratory research. For example, the police officers reported giving more attention to upper face features (e.g., hair) in selecting non-suspect lineup members (foils) which is consistent with research on feature saliency. However, other results indicate that the police use different procedures than those recommended in the research literature. For example, the police officers report using similarity as the major basis for selecting the nonsuspects (foils), whereas, research shows that selection of foils based exclusively on suspect appearance can produce biased lineups. In addition, there is considerable research showing that sequential lineups are more fair than simultaneous lineups, yet only 40% of the police investigators reported having used the sequential technique. These and other findings provide direction and implications for research opportunities. It is concluded that systematic investigation of actual police procedures is a more direct approach of studying ways to decrease identification errors.

Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence.

A mock-jury study was conducted to examine juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Subjects were 129 eligible and experienced jurors from Dane County, Wisconsin, who viewed a videotaped trial that involved an eyewitness identification. Ten factors associated with the crime and the identification (e.g., disguise of the perpetrator, retention interval, confidence of the witness) were manipulated. The results of this mock-jury study were combined with those of a previous study using the same experimental stimuli and procedures, but using undergraduates as subjects. This analysis showed that the confidence of the eyewitness was the most powerful predictor of verdicts (p<.05) and that differences between undergraduates and eligible jurors in their sensitivity to eyewitness evidence were negligible.

Requiring Jury Instructions on Eyewitness Identification Evidence at Federal Criminal Trials

Requiring Jury Instructions on Eyewitness Identification Evidence at Federal Criminal Trials

What can psychology say about the Neil v. Biggers criteria for judging eyewitness accuracy?

In an influential case (Neil v Biggers, 1972), the U S Supreme Court identified five catena to be considered m judging eyewitness identification evidence The Court's intuitions may need reassessment m light of recent psychological research evidence Especially in need of review is the assumption that eyewitness certainty and eyewitness identification accuracy are usefully related Under a variety of procedures that mimic the real-world environment, experiments have found the relationship between eyewitness accuracy and confidence to be of little or no practical use In addition, the Court's assumption that the degree of the eyewitness's attention is cntical to judging the accuracy of the eyewitness can be refined for the trier of fact. Psychological research can also bear directly on refining the Court's reference to the witness's opportunity to view the criminal, especially with regard to systematic biases in witnesses' estimations of temporal duration The Court's reference to an eyewitness's accuracy of prior description as a cue to accuracy of identificatio n is questionable Finally, the Court's reference to decay of memory across time should be refined to include concepts of interference (1 e , consideration of retention interval events rather than time, per se) Although the Court's intuitions about eyewitness identification are not unreasonable, the recent growth of a literature using forensically relevant procedures has increased the gap between experimental evidence and the Biggers criteria