Effectiveness of Traditional Safeguards Against Erroneous Conviction Arising From Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Expert Testimony on the Psychology of Eyewitness Identification

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages

  Devenport, Jennifer L ^a   Kimbrough, Christopher D ^a   Cutler, Brian L ^b  

^a WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cross examination; Judicial instructions; Legal safeguards; Motions to suppress chapter number and title; Presence of counsel; Voir dire

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952610137     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331974.003.003     Document Type: Chapter

References (48)

1. Abshire, J., & Bernstein, B. H. (2003). Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 471-480.
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. Berman, G. L., Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-juror's evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 79-88.
4. Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mockjuror judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1171-1192.
5. Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent. Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing Company, Inc.
6. 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.
7. Brigham, J. D., & Wolskeil, M. P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 337-349.
8. 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. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.
9. 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.
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., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Jury decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-56.
12. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
13. Devenport, J. L., & Cutler, B. L. (2004). Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 569-576.
14. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. (2002). 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, 87, 1042-1054.
15. Greene, E. (1988). Judge's instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252-276.
16. Huff, C. R. (1987). Wrongful conviction: Societal tolerance of injustice. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 4, 99-115.
17. Huff, C. R., Arye Rattner, R., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and public policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Kassin, S. (1979). Personal communication cited by 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O'Conner, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 333-339.
22. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitnessidentification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89.
23. McConkey, K. M., & Roche, S. M. (1989). Knowledge of eyewitness memory. Australian Psychologist, 24, 377-384.
24. Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1994). Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 724-729.
25. Noon, E., & Hollin, C. R. (1987). Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: A British survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 143-153.
26. People v. Wright, 43 Ca1.3d 399 (1987).
27. Rahaim, G. L., & Brodsky, S. L. (1982). Empirical evidence versus common sense: Juror and lawyer knowledge of eyewitness accuracy. Law & Psychology Review, 7, 1-15.
28. Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. E. (1996). Judges' cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14, 31-66.
29. Read, J. D., & Desmarais, S. L. (2009). Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian evaluation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 301-326.
30. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York, NY: Doubleday.
31. Schmechel, R.P., O'Toole, T. P., Easterly, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). "Beyond the ken?" Testing jurors' understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics, 46, 177, 214.
32. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
36. United States v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 1996).
37. United States v. Rincon, 36 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1994).
38. United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552, 558-59 (D.C.Cir. 1972).
39. Walters, C. M. (1985). Admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification. California Law Review, 73, 1402-1430.
40. Warden, R. (2001). How mistaken and perjured eyewitness identification testimony put 46 innocent Americans on death row: An analysis of wrongful convictions since restoration of the death penalty following Furman v. Georgia. Northwestern University School of Law, Center on Wrongful Convictions. Retrieved March 12, 2009 from.
41. 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.
42. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L, & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440-448.
43. Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court's reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 1-24.
44. Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45-75.
45. Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A., & Charman, S. D. (2002). The confidence of eyewitnesses in their identifications from lineups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 151-154.
46. Wise, R. A., Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., & Meyer, D. (2007). What prosecutors and defense attorneys know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Manuscript submitted for publication.
47. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & Burger, M. A., (1993). How police officers construct lineups: A national survey. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 640-644). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
48. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of U.S. police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 69-82.