The role of eyewitness identification evidence in felony case dispositions

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 140-159

  Flowe, Heather D ^a   Mehta, Amrita ^a   Ebbesen, Ebbe B ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Legal evidence; Legal processes; Legal testimony; Lineups; Witnesses

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952586560     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0021311     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Albonetti C. Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty. Law and Society Review 1987, 21:291-313. doi: 10.2307/3053523.
2. Behrman B.W., Davey S.L. Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior 2001, 25:475-491. doi: 10.1023/A:1012840831846.
3. Benton T.R., Ross D.F., Bradshaw E., Thomas W.N., Bradshaw G.S. Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges, and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2006, 20:115-130. doi: 10.1002/acp.1171.
4. Borchard E.M. Convicting the innocent 1932, Garden City Publishing Company, Inc., Garden City, NY.
5. Bradfield A., Wells G. The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law and Human Behavior 2000, 24(5):581-594. doi: 10.1023/A:1005523129437.
6. Brigham J.C. The accuracy of eyewitness evidence: How do attorneys see it?. The Florida Bar Journal, November 1981, 714-721.
7. Uniform Crime Charging Standards 1996, California District Attorney's Association.
8. Clark S.E., Wells G.L. On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications. Law and Human Behavior 2008, 32:406-422. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9115-7.
9. Connors E., Lundregan T., Miller N., McEwen T. Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial 1996, US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.
10. Deffenbacher K.A., Bornstein B.H., Penrod S.D., McGorty E.K. A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior 2004, 28:687-706. doi: 10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x.
11. Devenport J.L., Kimbrough C.D., Cutler B.L. Effectiveness of traditional safeguards against erroneous conviction arising from mistaken eyewitness identification. Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification 2009, 51-68. Oxford University Press (American Psychology-Law Society Series), New York, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331974.003.003. B.L. Cutler (Ed.).
12. Feeney F., Dill F., Weir A. Arrests without conviction: How often they occur and why 1983, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
13. Flowe H.D., Finklea K.M., Ebbesen E.B. Limitations of expert psychology testimony on eyewitness identification. Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification 2009, 220-221. Oxford University Press (American Psychology-Law Society Series), New York, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331974.003.003. B.L. Cutler (Ed.).
14. Goldstein A.G., Chance J.E., Schneller G.R. Frequency of eyewitness identification in criminal cases: A survey of prosecutors. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1989, 27:71-74.
15. Gross S.R., Jacoby K., Matheson D.J., Montgomery N., Patel S. Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2004. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 2005, 95:523-560.
16. Hosmer D.W., Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression 1989, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York.
17. Jacoby J., Mellon L., Ratledge E., Turner S. Prosecutorial decision making: A national study 1982, Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
18. Kingsnorth R., MacIntosh R., Sutherland S. Criminal charge or probation violation? Prosecutorial discretion and implications for research in criminal court processing. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2002, 40:553-578. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00966.x.
19. MacLin O.H., Phelan C.M. PC_Eyewitness: Evaluating the New Jersey method. Behavioral Research Methods 2007, 39:242-247.
20. Magnussen S., Melinder A., Stridbeck U., Raja A. Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of judges, jurors and the general public. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2010, 24:122-133. doi: 10.1002/acp.1550.
21. Meissner C.A., Brigham J.C. Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2001, 7:3-35. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3.
22. Miller F. Prosecution: The decision to charge a suspect with a crime 1969, Little Brown, Boston.
23. Nagel I.H., Hagan J. Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions. Crime and justice: An annual review of research 1983, 4:91-144. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. M. Tonry, N. Morris (Eds.).
24. People v. Aguilar, B194509; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 691 (2008).
25. People v. Cummings, B207053; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8678 (2009).
26. People v. Figueroa, B199625; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3529 (2008).
27. People v. Guerra, B208460; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8099 (2009).
28. People v. Hernandez, B170634; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9939 (2004).
29. People v. Ledesma, B178532; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1522 (2006).
30. People v. Lopez, B163955; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 22 (2004).
31. People v. Magana, D039298; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6614 (2003).
32. People v. Robles, B209644; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8099 (2009).
33. People v. Rountree, D039841; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2383 (2005).
34. People v. Rubalcava, H027786; C. A. LEXIS 11916 (2005).
35. People v. Trujillo, H032260; Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8304 (2009).
36. Piehl A.M., Bushway S.D. Measuring and explaining charge bargaining. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2007, 23:105-125. doi: 10.1007/s10940-006-9023-x.
37. Shapiro P.N., Penrod S. Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin 1986, 100:139-156. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.139.
38. Silberman C.E. Criminal violence, criminal justice 1978, Random House, New York.
39. Smith v. Smith, 02 Civ. 7308 (WHP)(JCF); U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17642 (2003).
40. State of Washington v. Riofta, No. 28209-7-II; Wash. App. LEXIS 1880 (2003).
41. Steblay N., Dysart J., Fulero S., Lindsay R.C.L. Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior 2003, 27:523-540. doi: 10.1023/A:1025438223608.
42. Steblay N.M. A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior 1992, 16:413-424. doi: 10.1007/BF02352267.
43. German and American prosecutions: An approach to statistical comparison 1998, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
44. U.S. Department of Justice. (2001). Felony sentences in state courts, 1998. BJS Bulletin, October, NCJ190103.
45. Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports 1995 1996, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
46. United States v. Burton, No. 3:97-cr-154; U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18730 (1998).
47. United States v. James, NMCM 98 02036; CCA LEXIS 64 (2001).
48. Wells G., Memon A., Penrod S. Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological science in the public interest 2006, 7:45-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x.
49. Wells G.L., Malpass R.S., Lindsay R.C.L., Fisher R.P., Turtle J.W., Fulero S.M. From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist 2000, 55:581-598. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.581.
50. Wells G.L., Murray D.M. What can psychology say about the Neil v. Biggers criteria for judging eyewitness accuracy?. Journal of Applied Psychology 1983, 68(3):347-362. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.347.