How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 87, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 1042-1054

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

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SAINT MARY S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c JuryTactics LLC   (United States)

^d GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIME; EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN; MEMORY; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SUGGESTION; VIDEORECORDING;

CRIME; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; MEMORY; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SUGGESTION; VIDEOTAPE RECORDING;

EID: 0036984423     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1042     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (1994). Psychology and Law. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
2. Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock-juror judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1171-1192.
3. Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 19-30.
4. Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwen, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281-290.
8. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identifications: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. 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.
10. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Jury sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191.
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. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
14. Devenport, J. L., & Fisher, R. P. (1996). The effect of authority and social influence on eyewitness suggestibility and person recognition. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 11, 35-40.
15. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., & Kovera, M. B. (1996, March). How much impact does expert testimony have on juror decisions? A meta-analysis. Poster session presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Hilton Head, SC.
16. Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
17. Fox, S. G., & Walters, G. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock-juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215-228.
18. Greene, E. (1988). Judge's instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252-276.
19. Hosch, H. M., Beck, E. L., & McIntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 287-296.
20. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
21. Keppel, G., & Zedeck, S. (1989). Data analysis for research designs: Analysis of variance and multiple regression/correlation approaches. New York: W. H. Freeman.
22. Kerr, N. L., Nerenz, D., & Herrick, D. (1979). Role playing and the study of jury behavior. Social Methods and Research, 7, 337-355.
23. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972).
24. Kohnken, G., & Maass, A. (1988). Eyewitness testimony: False alarms on biased instructions? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 363-370.
25. Kramer, G. P., & Kerr, N. L. (1989). Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior: A methodological note. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 89-100.
26. Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the original and revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661-677.
27. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745.
28. 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.
29. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L., & Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 447-459.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9-15.
33. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distractors for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43-57.
34. Maass, A., Brigham, J. C., & West, S. G. (1985). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 207-229.
35. MacCoun, R., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 482-489.
36. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.
37. McConkey, K. M., & Roche, S. M. (1989). Knowledge of eyewitness memory. Australian Psychologist, 24, 377-384.
38. Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1994). Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 724-729.
39. Noon, E., & Hollin, C. R. (1987). Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: A British survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 143-153.
40. O'Rourke, T. E., Penrod, S. D., Cutler, B. L., & Stuve, T. E. (1989). The external validity of eyewitness identification research: Generalizing across subject populations. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 385-395.
41. Paley, B., & Geiselman, R. E. (1989). The effects of alternative photo spread instructions on suspect identification performance. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 7, 3-13.
42. Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 11-26.
43. 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 the science. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 229-259.
44. People v. McDonald, 37 Cal.3d 351, 690 P.2d 709, 716, 208 Cal.Rptr. 236, 245 (1984).
45. 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.
46. Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (1997). How effective is the motion-to-suppress safeguard? Judges' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 211-220.
47. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967).
48. U.S. v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973).
49. U.S. v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552, 558-59 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
50. U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
51. Walters, C. M. (1985). Admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification. California Law Review, 73, 1402-1430.
52. Wells, G. L. (1984). How adequate is human intuition for judging eyewitness testimony? In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 256-272). New York: Cambridge University Press.
53. Wells, G. L. (1986). Expert psychological testimony: Empirical and conceptual analyses of effects. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-93.
54. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
55. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.
56. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Tousignant, J. P. (1980). Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 275-285.
57. Wells, G. L., & Luus, C. A. E. (1990). Police lineups as experiments: Social methodology as a framework for properly conducted lineups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 106-117.