How effective is the motion-to-suppress safeguard? Judges' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 211-220

  Stinson, Veronica ^b   Cutler, Brian L ^c   Devenport, Jennifer L ^a   Kravitz, David A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b SAINT MARY S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c University of Nebraska ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; CRIME; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; SOCIAL CONTROL; SUGGESTION; THEFT;

ADULT; CRIME; HOMICIDE; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; SOCIAL CONTROL, FORMAL; SUGGESTION; THEFT;

EID: 0031114490     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.211     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37, 245-257.
2. Berman, G. L., & Cutler, B. L. (1996). Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 170-177.
3. Brigham, J. C., & Wolfskiel, M. P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 337-349.
4. Catlin, D. W. (1982). An empirical study of judges' reasons for participating in continuing professional education. Justice System Journal, 7, 236-256.
5. Claxton, C. S. (1992). Characteristics of ineffective judicial education programs. Judicature, 76, 11-14.
6. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215-255.
7. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for improving juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197-1207.
8. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281-290.
9. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identifications: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311-332.
11. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identifications: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 223-258.
12. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Jury decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-56.
13. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (1996, August). The effectiveness of cross-examination and expert psychological testimony: Are jurors sensitive to lineup suggestiveness? Paper presented at the 104th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
14. Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225-249.
15. Greene, E. (1988). Judge's instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252-276.
16. Hans, V., & Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the jury. New York: Plenum Press.
17. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The 'general acceptance' of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.
18. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1988). The American jury on trial: Psychological perspectives. New York: Hemisphere.
19. Kirby, D., & Redel, S. (1994). Judicial education: Potential roles for continuing education units. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 20, 25-41.
20. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.
21. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745.
22. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796-802.
23. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wallbridge, H., & Drennan, D. (1987). Do clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness identification accuracy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19, 463-478.
24. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303-314.
25. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
26. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distractors for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43-57.
27. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.
28. Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1994). Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 724-729.
29. Penrod, S. D., Fulero, S. M., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: The state of the law and science. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 229-259.
30. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
31. Rahaim, G. L., & Brodsky, S. L. (1982). Empirical evidence versus common sense: Juror and lawyer knowledge of eyewitness accuracy. Law and Psychology Review, 7, 1-15.
32. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (1996). How effective is the presence-of-counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 64-75.
34. Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22, 301-355.
35. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
36. Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688-696.
37. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.
38. Wells, G. L., & Luus, C. A. E. (1990). Police lineups as experiments: Social methodology as a framework for properly conducted lineups. Special issue: Illustrating the value of basic research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 106-117.
39. Wells, G. L., & Seelau, E. P. (1995). Eyewitness identification: Psychological research and legal policy on lineups. Special issue: Witness, memory, and law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 765-791.
40. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & Burger, M. A. (1993). How police officers conduct lineups: A national survey. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37, 640-644.