Has eyewitness testimony research penetrated the American legal system? a synthesis of case history, juror knowledge, and expert testimony

The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume II: Memory for People

Volumn 2, Issue , 2007, Pages 453-500

  Benton, Tanja Rapus ^a   Mc Donnell, Stephanie ^a   Ross, David F ^a   Thomas, Honorable W Neil ^b   Bradshaw, Emily ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA   (United States)

^b Circuit Court of Tennessee ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649619619     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936368-26     Document Type: Chapter

References (151)

1. Abshire, J., & Bornstien, B. H. (2003). Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 471-480.
2. 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.
3. Berman, G. L., & Cutler, B. L. (1996). Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (2), 170-177.
4. Bloodsworth v. Maryland, 307 Md. 164; 512 A.2d 1056 (Md. App.1986).
5. Borchard, E. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors in criminal justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
6. Bradfield, A. L., & Wells, G. L. (2000). The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law and Human Behavior, 24(5), 581-594.
7. Brandon, R., & Davies, C. (1973). Wrongful imprisonment. London: Allen & Unwin.
8. Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7(1), 19-30.
9. 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(4), 337-349.
10. Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 353-364.
11. Collins, W. S. (2003). Improving eyewitness evidence collection procedures in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Law Review, 529.
12. Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam, 544 Pa. 514; 678 A.2d 342 (Pa. 1996).
13. Commonwealth v. Christie, 98 S.W.3d 485 (Ky. 2002).
14. Commonwealth v. Santoli, Jr., 424 Mass. 837; 680 N.E.2d 1116 (Mass. 1997).
15. Connors, E. T., Lundregan, N., Miller, N., & McEwen, T. (1996). Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trail. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 161258.
16. Cook v. State, 734 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 2000).
17. Criglow v. State, 183 Ark. 407, S.W. 2d.
18. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision-making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 7, 215-225.
20. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(14), 1197-1207.
21. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13(3), 311-331.
22. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 185-191.
23. 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, 233-258.
24. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Jury decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 41-56.
25. Currie v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 58; 515 S.E.2d 335 (Va. 1999).
26. Daubert v. Merril Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 125 L.Ed.2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
27. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6(1), 15-30.
28. Devenport, J. L., Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluating commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2/3), 338-361.
29. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the crossexamination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1042-1054.
30. Dunlap, E. E., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, B., & Thomas, W. N. (2003). Is eyewitness testimony commonsense to jurors? An empirical test of the reasoning in State of Tennessee v. Coley. Poster presented at Psychology and Law International, Interdisciplinary Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 7-12, 2003.
31. Durham, M. D., & Dane, F. C. (1999). Juror knowledge of eyewitness behavior: Evidence for the necessity of expert testimony. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 14(2), 299-308.
32. Dyer v. State, 1998 Ark. App. (Ark. Ct. App. 1998).
33. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville: Michie Co.
34. Engberg, v. Meyer, 820 P.2d 70 (Wyo. 1991).
35. Ex parte Williams, 594 So. 2d 1225 (Ala. 1992).
36. Findley, K. A. (2002). Learning from our mistakes: A criminal justice commission to study wrongful convictions. California Western Law Review, 333.
37. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10(3), 215-228.
38. Frank, J., & Frank, B. (1957). Not guilty. London: Gollancz.
39. Garden v. State, 815 A.2d 327 (Del. 2003).
40. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 433-458.
41. Geiselman, R. E., Putman, C., Korte, R., Sharhriary, M., Jachimonwicz, G., & Irzhevsky, V. (2002). Eyewitness expert testimony and juror decisions. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 20(3), 21-30.
42. Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 723 S.W.2d 871 (Ky.1986).
43. Goodman, J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). What confuses jurors in complex cases. Trial (November), 65-68.
44. Green v. United States, 718 A.2d 1042 (D.C. App. 1998).
45. Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252-276.
46. Groscup, J., & Penrod, S. D. (2003). Battle of the standards for experts in criminal cases: Police vs. psychologists. Seton Hall Law Review, 1141.
47. Gross, W. D. (1999). The unfortunate faith: A solution to the unwarranted reliance upon eyewitness testimony. Texas Wesleyan Law Review, 307.
48. Hosch, H. M. (1980). A comparison of three studies of the influence of expert testimony on jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 297-302.
49. 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.
50. Huff, R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1986). Guilty until proven innocent. Crime and Delinquincy, 32, 518-544.
51. Ivkovic, S. K., & Hans, V. P. (2003). Jurors’ evaluations of expert testimony: Judging the messenger and the message. Law and Social Inquiry, 28, 441.
52. Johnson v. State, 272 Ga. 254; 526 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. 2000).
53. Johnson v. State, 438 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1983).
54. Judges, D. P. (2000). Two cheers for the Department of Justice’s eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Arkansas Law Review, 53.
55. Kassin, S. M., & Barndollar, K. A. (1992). The psychology of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of experts and prospective jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (16), 1241-1249.
56. 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(8), 1089-1098.
57. 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, 50(5), 405-416.
58. Katzev, R. D., & Wishart, S. S. (1985). The impact of judicial commentary concerning eyewitness identifications on jury decision making. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 733-745.
59. Koch, R. (2003). Process v. outcome: The proper role of corroborative evidence in due process analysis of eyewitness identification testimony. Cornell Law Review, 1097.
60. Koosed, M. M. (2002). The proposed innocence protection act won’t-unless it also curbs mistaken eyewitness identifications. Ohio State Law Journal, 263.
61. Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer-review and evidence quality on judge evaluation of psychological science: Are judges effective gate-keepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 574-586.
62. Lampinen, J. M., Judges, D. P., Odegard, T. N., & Hamilton, S. (2005). Reactions of mock jurors to the Department of Justice guidelines for the collection and preservation of eyewitness evidence. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 155-162.
63. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1994). Expectations of eyewitness performance: Jurors’ verdicts do not follow from their beliefs. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony. Cambridge University Press: New York.
64. 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(5), 447-459.
65. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O’Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law & Human Behavior, 13(3), 333-339.
66. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89.
67. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
68. Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9-15.
69. 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(3), 207-229.
70. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98; 97 S. Ct. 2243; 53 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1976).
71. McConkey, K. M., & Roche, S. M. (1989). Knowledge of eyewitness memory. Australian Psychologist, 24, 377-384.
72. Mims v. State, NO. 12-02-00178-CR (2004 Tex. App.).
73. Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1994). Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 724-729.
74. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S. Ct. 375, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1972).
75. Noon, E., & Hollin, C. R. (1987). Lay knowledge of eyewitness behavior: A British survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 143-153.
76. Pankey v. Commonwealth, 485 S.W.2d 513 (Ky.1972).
77. Penrod, S., & Cutler, B. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1 (4), 817-845.
78. People v. Campbell, 847 P.2d 228 (Colo. App. 1992).
79. People v. Gillis, 1999 Mich. App. LEXIS 2348.
80. People v. Hill, 84 Mich. App. 90, 269 N.W. 2d 492 (1978).
81. People v. McDonald, 37 Cal. 3rd 351, 690 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1984).
82. People v. Smith, 3 Misc. 3d 1007A (NY 2004).
83. Rahaim, G. L., & Brodsky, S. L. (1982). Empirical evidence versus common sense: Juror and lawyer knowledge of eyewitness accuracy. Law & Psychology Review, 7(1), 1-15.
84. Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. E. (1996). Judges’ cautionary instructions on eyewitness memory. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14(1), 31-66.
85. Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors’ understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16(5), 539-554.
86. Seltzer, R., Lopes, G. M., & Venuti, M. (1990). Juror ability to recognize the limitations of eyewitness identifications. Forensic Reports, 3, 121-137.
87. Shaw, J. S., Garcia, L. A., & McClure, K. A. (1999). A lay perspective on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(1), 52-71.
88. Skamarocius v. State, 731 P.2d 63 (Alas. App. 1987).
89. State v. Blair, 164 Wis. 2d 64; 473 N.W.2d 566 (Wis. 1991).
90. State v. Buell, 22 Ohio St. 3d 124; 489 N.E.2d 795 (Ohio 1986).
91. State v. Coley, 32 S.W.3d 831 (Tenn. 2000).
92. State v. Fontaine, 382 N.W. 2d 374 (N.D. 1986).
93. State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752; 926 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1996).
94. State v. Galloway, 275 N.W.2d 736 (Iowa 1979).
95. State v. George, 264 Neb. 26; 645 N.W.2d 777 (Neb. 2002).
96. State v. Goldsby, 59 Ore. App. 66; 650 P.2d 952 (Ore. 1982).
97. State v. Gunter, 231 N.J. Super. 34; 554 A.2d 1356 (N.J. 1989).
98. State v. Gurley, 565 So. 2d 1055 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990).
99. State v. Lee, 154 N.C. App. 410; 572 S.E.2d 170 (N.C. 2002).
100. State v. Maestas, 63 P.3d 621 (Utah 2002).
101. State v. Martinez, 774 A.2d 15 (R.I. 2001).
102. State v. McClendon, 248 Conn. 572; 730 A.2d 1107 (Conn. 1999).
103. State v. McCord, 505 N.W.2d 388 (S.D. 1993).
104. State v. McKinney, 74 S.W.3d 291 (Tenn. 2002).
105. State v. Miles, 585 N.W.2d 368 (Minn. 1998).
106. State v. Nordlund, 2002 Wash. App (Wash. 2002).
107. State v. Nordstrum, 200 Ariz. 229; 25 P.3d 717 (Ariz. 2001).
108. State v. Pacheco, 134 Idaho 367; 2 P.3d 752 (Idaho Ct. App. 2000).
109. State v. Percy, 156 Vt. 468; 595 A.2d 248 (Vt. 1990).
110. State v. Rich, 549 A.2d 742, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1988.
111. State v. Schutz, 579 N.W.2d 317 (Iowa 1998).
112. State v. Taylor, 200 W. Va. 661; 490 S.E.2d 748 (W.Va. 1997).
113. State v. Tisdel, 338 Ill. App. 3d 465; 788 N.E.2d 1149 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
114. State v. Whaley, 305 S.C. 138; 406 S.E.2d 369 (S.C. 1991).
115. State v. Whitmill, 780 S.W.2d 45 (Mo. 1989).
116. Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L, Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (1996). How effective is the pres-ence-of-counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctabil-ity of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 64-75.
117. 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(2), 211-220.
118. 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.
119. Torres v. State, 1998 OK CR 40; 962 P.2d 3 (Okla. 1998).
120. United States Code Service. (USCS). Article IV. Relevancy and its limits. Rule 401. Definition of “Relevant Evidence” (Fed. R. Evid. 401).
121. United States Code Service. (USCS). Article IV. Relevancy and its limits. Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time (Fed. R. Evid. 403).
122. United States Code Service. (USCS). Article VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony. Rule 702. Testimony by Experts. (Fed. R. Evid. 702).
123. United States v. Brien, 59 F.3d 274 (1995).
124. United States v. Brown, 461 F.2d 134 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
125. United States v. Crotteau, 218 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2000).
126. United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095, 1101 (7th Cir. 1999).
127. United States v. Kime, 99 F.3d 870 (8th Cir. 1996).
128. United States v. Labansat, 94 F.3d 527 (1996).
129. United States v. Langan, 263 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2001).
130. United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280 (2d Cir.1999).
131. United States v. Mathis, 264 F.3d 321 (3rd Cir. 2001).
132. United States v. Moore, 786 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir. 1986).
133. United States v. Smith, 122 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 1997).
134. United States v. Smith, 156 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 1998).
135. United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
136. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
137. United States v. Wayne, 254 F. Supp. 2d 602 (2003).
138. Walters, C. M. (1985). Admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification. California Law Review, 73, 1402-1430.
139. Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W. 3d 540 (Tex. 2000).
140. 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.
141. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good you identified the suspect”: Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360-376.
142. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 440-448.
143. 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(4), 275-285.
144. 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(6), 581-598.
145. Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1983). What can psychology say about the Neil v. Biggers criteria for judging eyewitness accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 347-362.
146. 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.
147. White v. Mississippi, 847 So. 2d 886 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).
148. White v. State, 112 Nev. 1261; 926 P.2d 291 (Nev. 1996).
149. Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427-443.
150. Yarmey, A. D. (2001). Expert testimony: Does eyewitness memory research have probative value for the courts? Canadian Psychology, 42 (2), 92-100.
151. Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. (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: John Wiley & Sons.