Eyewitness identification: Guidelines and recommendations for identification procedures in the United States and in Canada

Canadian Psychology

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 181-189

  Yarmey, A Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041534370     PISSN: 07085591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/h0086938     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Binet, A. (1900). La suggestibilité. Paris: Schleider Frères.
2. Bolton, F. W. (1896). The accuracy of recollection and observation. Psychological Review, 3, 286-295.
3. Brigham, J. C., Wasserman, A. W., & Meissner, C. A. (1999). Disputed eyewitness identification evidence: Important legal and scientific issues. Court Review, Summer, 12-25.
4. Brooks, N. (1983). Police guidelines: Pretrial eyewitness identification procedures. Ottawa, ON: Law Reform Commission of Canada.
5. Cody, H. M. (1924). On the psychology of testimony. American Journal of Psychology, 35, 110-112.
6. Carson, D., & Bull, R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of psychology in legal contexts, Second edition. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
7. Cattell, J. McK. (1895). Measurements of the accuracy of recollections. Science, New Series, 2, 761-766.
8. Clifford, B. R., & Bull, R. (1978). The psychology of person identification. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
9. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
10. Deffenbacher, K., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
11. Devlin, Honourable Lord Patrick (1976). Report to the secretary of state for the Home Department of the departmental committee on evidence of identification in criminal cases. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
12. Foster, H. (1980). Eyewitness testimony. In J. Taylor (Ed.), Recent developments in the law of evidence (pp. 31-38). Vancouver, BC: Butterworths.
13. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, (1967).
14. Henke, E. (1838). Handbuch des Criminalrechts und der Criminalpolitik. Vierter Theil. Berlin: Nicolai.
15. Huff, R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1986). Guilty until proven innocent. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 518-544.
16. Hutchins, R. M., & Siesinger, D. (1928). Some observations on the law of evidence - memory. Harvard Law Review, 41, 860-873.
17. Kassin, S. M. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: The fifth rule. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 649-653.
18. Kebbel, M. R., & Wagstaff, G. F. (1999). Face value? Evaluating the accuracy of eyewitness information. Police Research Series, Paper 102, The Home Office, London.
19. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972).
20. Levine, F. J., & Tapp, J. L. (1973). The psychology of criminal identification: The gap from Wade to Kirby. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 121, 1079-1131.
21. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1994). Biased lineups: Where do they come from? In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 182-200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572.
23. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Loftus, E. F. (1992). When a lie becomes memory's truth: Memory distortion after exposure to misinformation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 121-123.
25. Maass, A. (1996). Logic and methodology of experimental research in eyewitness psychology. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 279-293). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Manitoba, The inquiry regarding Thomas Sophonow: The investigation, prosecution and consideration of entitlement to compensation. Winnipeg, MB: Department of Justice. Available at: www.gov.mb.ca/justice/ sophonow/recommendations/english.html
27. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977).
28. Marshall v. Nova Scotia (A.G.) (1989) 2 S.C.R. 788, 62 D.L.R. (4th) 354, 100 N.R. 73, 93 N.S.R. (2d) 123, 271, 41 Admin. L.R. 121, 50 C.C.C. (3d) 486.
29. Marston, W. M. (1924). Studies in testimony. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 15, 5-31.
30. Milgaard v. Saskatchewan, (1994), 118 D.L.R. (4th) 161, 27 C.C.C. (3d) 97.
31. Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
32. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
33. Ogloff, J. R. P. (2001). Expert psychological testimony: Assisting or misleading the trier of fact? Canadian Psychology, 42, 87-108.
34. Peters, M. (2001). Forensic psychological testimony: Is the courtroom door now locked and barred? Canadian Psychology, 42, 101-108.
35. R. v. Armstrong, (1959), 125, C.C.C. 56 (B.C.C.A.).
36. R. v. McIntosh and McCarthy, (1997), 117 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (Ont. C.A.).
37. R. v. Morin, (1995), 37 CR (4th) 395 (Ont. C.A.).
38. R. v. Sophonow, (No. 2) (1986), 25 C.C.C. (3d) 415.
39. Redmount, R. S. (1959). The psychological basis of evidence practices: Memory. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 50, 249-264.
40. Saunders, J. W. S. (2001). Experts in court: A view from the bench. Canadian Psychology, 42, 109-118.
41. Slesinger, D., & Pilpel, E. M. (1929). Legal psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 26, 677-692.
42. Sporer, S. L. (1982). A brief history of the psychology of testimony. Current Psychological Reviews, 2, 323-340.
43. Stern, L. W. (1902). Zur Psychologie der Aussage. Zeitschrift für Strafwissenschaft, 22, 315-370.
44. Stern, L. W. (1910). Abstracts of lectures on the psychology of testimony on the study of individuality. American Journal of Psychology, 21, 270-282.
45. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 302 (1967).
46. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Available at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
47. Trankell, A. (Ed.). (1982). Reconstructing the past: The role of psychologists in criminal trials. Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts.
48. Undeutsch, U. (1982). Statement reality analysis. In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing the past: The role of psychologists in criminal trials (pp. 27-56). Stockholm, Sweden: Norstedts.
49. United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973).
50. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
51. Wall, P. M. (1965). Eyewitness identification in criminal cases. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
52. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
53. Wells, G. L. (1980). Eyewitness behavior: The Alberta Conference. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 237-242.
54. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P. Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598.
55. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.
56. Whipple, G. M. (1909). The observer as reporter: A survey of the "Psychology of Testimony." Psychological Bulletin, 6, 153-170.
57. Whipple, G. M. (1910). Recent literature on the psychology of testimony. Psychological Bulletin, 7, 365-368.
58. Whipple, G. M. (1911). The psychology of testimony. Psychological Bulletin, 8, 307-309.
59. Whipple, G. M. (1912). Psychology of testimony and report. Psychological Bulletin, 9, 264-269.
60. Wigmore, J. J. (1909). Professor Münsterberg and the psychology of evidence. Illinois Law Review, 3, 399-445.
61. Yarmey, A. D. (1979). The psychology of eyewitness testimony. New York: Free Press.
62. Yarmey, A. D. (2001a). Expert testimony: Does eyewitness memory research have probative value for the courts? Canadian Psychology, 42, 92-100.
63. Yarmey, A. D. (2001b). Police investigations. In R. A. Schuller & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Introduction to psychology and law: Canadian perspectives (pp. 59-94). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
64. Yarmey, A. D. (2003). Eyewitnesses. In D. Carson & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts, second edition (pp. 553-557). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
65. Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. (1982). Police awareness of the fallibility of eyewitness identification. Canadian Police College Journal, 6, 113-124.
66. Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 13-40). New York: Wiley.
67. Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, A. L., Yarmey, M. J., & Parliament, L. (2001). Commonsense beliefs and the identification of familiar voices. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 283-299.
68. Yuille, J. C. (Ed.). (1986). Police selection and training: The role of psychology. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.