What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 427-443

  Wise, Richard A ^a   Safer, Martin A ^a  

^a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPECTATION; EXPERIENCE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; INFORMATION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TRAINING; WITNESS;

EID: 7744233824     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.993     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: the power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 669-679.
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. Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent. Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books.
4. 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.
5. Brigham, J. C., & Wolfskeil, M. P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 337-349.
6. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identifications: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191.
10. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
11. Devlin, L. (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. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
13. Dripps. (1999). Miscarriages of justice and the constitution. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 2, 635-680.
14. Elliott, R. (1993). Expert testimony about eyewitness identification: a critique. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 423-437.
15. Federal Rules of Evidence. The committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. US Government Printing Office: Washington D.C. 2002.
16. Fisher, R. P. (1995). Interviewing victims and witnesses of crime. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1, 732-764.
17. Huff, C. R. (1987). Wrongful conviction: societal tolerance of injustice. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 4, 99-115.
18. Kassin, S. M., & Barndollar, K. A. (1992). The psychology of eyewitness testimony: a comparison of experts and prospective jurors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 22, 1241-1249.
19. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the 'general acceptance' of eyewitness testimony research: a new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
20. Kirby v. Illinois. 406 U.S. 682. (1972).
21. Lindsay, R., Wells, G., & O'Connor, F. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate witnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 333-339.
22. Loftus, E., & Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the defense: The accused, the eyewitness, and the expert who puts memory on trial. New York: St. Martin's Press.
23. Neil v. Biggers. 409 U.S. 188. (1972).
24. O'Hagan. (1993). When Seeing is Not Believing: The Case for Eyewitness Expert Testimony. Georgetown Law Journal, 81, 741-772.
25. Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Preventing mistaken convictions in eyewitness identification trials. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 89-118). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
26. Rattner, A. (1988). Convicted but innocent. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 283-293.
27. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches form the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.
28. Shepherd, J. W., Ellis, H. D., & Davies, G. M. (1982). Identification evidence: A psychological evaluation. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
29. Sporer, S., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Choosing, confidence, accuracy: a meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
30. Sporer, S. L., Malpass, R. S., & Koehnken, G. (1996). Psychological issues in eyewitness identification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. 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.
32. 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 instructions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 211-220.
33. United States v. Ash. 413 U.S. 300. (1973).
34. United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999).
35. United States v. Wade. 388 U.S. 218. (1967).
36. 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.
37. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identifications procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.
38. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From lab to the police station: a successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598.
39. Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2003). A survey of judges' knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony. Court Review, 40 1), 6-16.
40. 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 (pp. 13-40). Chichester, England: Wiley.