An examination of the causes and solutions to eyewitness error

Frontiers in Psychiatry

Volumn 5, Issue AUG, 2014, Pages

  Wise, Richard A ^a   Sartori, Giuseppe ^b   Magnussen, Svein ^c   Safer, Martin A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^d CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA   (United States)

Author keywords

Causes; Error; Eyewitness; Legal safeguards; Solutions

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPETENCE; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; EXAMINATION; EXPERT WITNESS; EYEWITNESS ERROR; HUMAN; JUDGE; JUROR; LAWYER; MEMORY; NONMEDICAL OCCUPATIONS; POLICE; PSYCHOLOGIST; WITNESS;

EID: 84938530847     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16640640     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00102     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Castelli P, Goodman GS, Edelstein RS, Mitchell EB, Alonso PMP, Lyons KE, et al. Evaluating eyewitness testimony in adults and children. In: Weiner IB, Hess AK, editors Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc (2006). p. 243-304. Available from: http://ezproxy.library.und.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2005-12932-01 l&site=ehost-live&scope= site
2. Loftus EF, Greene E. Warning: even memory for faces may be contagious. Law Hum Behav (1980) 4(4):323-34. doi:10.1007/BF01040624
3. Loftus EF. Dispatch from the uncivil memory wars. Lancet (2004) 364:20-21. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04) 17626-5
4. Brewer N, Burke A. Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law Hum Behav (2002) 26(3):353-64. doi:10.1023/A:1015380522722
5. Shaw JS III. Increases in eyewitness confidence resulting from postevent questioning. JExp PsycholAppl (1996) 2(2):126-46. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.2.2.126
6. Wells GL, Bradfield AL. 'Good, you identified the suspect': feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. J Appl Psychol (1998) 83(3):360-76.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.360
7. The Innocence Project. EyewitnessMisidentification. (2014). Available from:http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
8. Gross SR, Shaffer M. Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2012: Report by the National Registry of Exoneration (2012). Available from: http://www.law. umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/exonerations_us_1989_2012_full_ report.pdf
9. Smith AM, Cutler BL. Introduction: identification procedures and conviction of the innocent. In: Cutler BL, editor. Reform of Eyewitness Identification Procedures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (2013). p. 3-21. doi:10.1037/14094-001
10. Perry v. New Hampshire. (2012). Brief for Amicus Curiae. American Psychological Association. Available from: http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/new-hampshire.pdf
11. BentonTR, Ross DF, Bradshaw E, Thomas WN, BradshawGS. Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Appl Cogn Psychol (2006) 20(l):l 15-29. doi:10.1002/acp. 1171
12. Deffenbacher KA, Loftus EF. Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law Hum Behav (1982) 6(1):15-30. doi:10.1007/BF01049310
13. Desmarais SL, Read JD. After 30 years, what do we know about what jurors know? A meta-analytic review of lay knowledge regarding eyewitness factors. Law Hum Behav (2011) 35(3):200-10. doi:10.1007/sl0979-010-9232-6
14. Houston KA, Hope L, Memon A, Read JD. Expert testimony on eyewitness evidence: in search of common sense. Behav Sci Law (2013) 31(5):637-51. doi:10.1002/bsl.2082
15. Magnussen S, Melinder A, Stridbeck U, Raja AQ. Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: a comparison of judges, jurors and the general public. Appl Cogn Psychol (2010) 24(l):122-33. doi:10.1002/acp.l550
16. McConkey KM, Roche SM. Knowledge of eyewitness memory. Aust Psychol (1989) 24(3):377-84. doi:10.1080/00050068908259576
17. Noon E, Hollin CR. Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: a British survey. Appl Cogn Psychol (1987) l(2):143-53. doi:10.1002/acp.2350010207
18. Schmechel RS, O'Toole TP, Easterly C, Loftus EF. Beyond the Ken? Testing Jurors' Understanding of Eyewitness Reliability Evidence. (2006). Available from: http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents8rtype= retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=LT&dodd=A145541453&source= gale&srcprod=LT&userGroupName=undl_law&version=1.0
19. Boyce M, Beaudry J, Lindsay RCL. Belief of eyewitness identification evidence. In: Lindsay RCL, Ross DF, Read JD, Toglia MP, editors. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers (2007). p.501-25. Available from: http://ezproxy.library.und.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2007-04817-019&site=ehost-live&scope=site
20. Shaw J, Garcia LA, McClure KA. A lay perspective on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. JApplSocPsychol (1999) 29(1):52-71. doi: 10.1111/j.l559-1816. 1999.tb01374.x
21. Pawlenko NB, Safer MA, Wise RA, Holfeld B. A teaching aid for improving jurors' assessments of eyewitness accuracy. Appl Cogn Psychol (2013) 27(2):190-7. doi:10.1002/acp.2895
22. Wells GL. Applied eyewitness-testimony research: system variables and estimator variables. J PersSocPsychol (1978) 36(12):1546-57. doi:10.1037/0022-3514. 36.12.1546
23. Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Dexter HR. Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law Hum Behav (1990) 14(2):185-91. doi:10.1007/BF01062972
24. Lindsay RCL, Wells GL, O'Connor FJ. Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: a replication and extension. Law Hum Behav (1989) 13(3):333-9. doi:10.1007/BF01067033
25. O'Rourke TE, Penrod SD, Cutler BL, Stuve TE. The external validity of eyewitness identification research: generalizing across subject populations. Law Hum Behav (1989) 13(4):385-95. doi:10.1007/BF01056410
26. Wells GL, Lindsay RC, Ferguson TJ. Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. J Appl Psychol (1979) 64(4):440-8. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.440
27. Wise RA, Safer MA. What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Appl Cogn Psychol (2004) 18(4):427-43. doi:10.1002/acp.993
28. Kassin SM, Tubb VA, Hosch HM, Memon A. On the 'general acceptance' of eyewitness testimony research: a new survey of the experts. Am Psychol (2001) 56(5):405-16. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.5.405
29. Magnussen S, Wise RA, Raja AQ, Safer MA, Pawlenko N, Stridbeck U. What judges know about eyewitness testimony: a comparison of Norwegian and US judges. Psychol Crime Law (2008) 14(3):177-88. doi:10.1080/10683160701580099
30. Granhag PA, Stromwall LA, Hartwig M. Eyewitness testimony: tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals. Behav Sci Law (2005) 23(5):709-27. doi:10.1002/bsl.670
31. Wise RA, Gong X, Safer MA, Lee Y. A comparison of Chinese judges' and US judges' knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony. Psychol Crime Law (2010) 16(8):695-713. doi:10.1080/10683160903153893
32. Stinson V, Devenport JL, Cutler BL, Kravitz DA. How effective is the motionto- suppress safeguard? judges' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. J Appl Psychol (1997) 82(2):211-20. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.211
33. Lindsay RC, MacDonaldP, McGarryS. Perspectives on the role of the eyewitness expert. Behav Sci Law (1990) 8(4):457-64. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370080411
34. Rahaim GL, Brodsky SL. Empirical evidence versus common sense: juror and lawyer knowledge of eyewitness accuracy. Law Psychol Rev (1982) 7:1-15.
35. Stinson V, Devenport JL, Cutler BL, Kravitz DA. How effective is the presenceof- counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability of biased lineup procedures. J Appl Psychol (1996) 81(l):64-75. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.64
36. Yarmey AD, Jones HPT. Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In: Lloyd-Bostock S, Cliffords BR, editors. Evaluating Witness Evidence. Chichester: Wiley (1983). p. 13-40.
37. Wise RA, Pawlenko NB, Safer MA, Meyer D. What US prosecutors and defence attorneys know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Appl Cogn Psychol (2009) 23(9):1266-81. doi:10.1002/acp.l530
38. Magnussen S, Safer MA, Sartori G, Wise RA. What Italian defense attorneys know about factors affecting eyewitness accuracy: a comparison with U.S. and Norwegian samples. Front Psychiatry (2013) 4:28. doi:10.3389/fpsyt. 2013.00028
39. Wise RA, Safer MA, Maro CM. What U.S. law enforcement officers know and believe about eyewitness factors, eyewitness interviews and identification procedures. Appl Cogn Psychol (2011) 25(3):488-500. doi: 10.1002/acp. 1717
40. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice. Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. (1999). Available from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/178240.pdf
41. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Eyewitness Evidence: A Training Manual for Law Enforcement. (2003). Available from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/nij/eyewitness/188678.pdf
42. Fraser I, Waite K, Bond-Fraser L. Canadian police officers' knowledge of the fallibility of eyewitness testimony. Int J Liber Arts Soc Sci (2013) l(3):108-18.
43. Kask K. Comparison of knowledge of law enforcement and lay people regarding eyewitness testimony. Jurlnt (2011) 18:161-72.
44. Police Executive Research Forum. A National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedures in Law Enforcement Agencies. (2013). Available from: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Eyewitness_ Identification/a%20national%20survey%20of%20eyewitness%20identification %20procedures%20in%201aw%20enforcement%20agencies%202013.pdf
45. Magnussen S, Melinder A. Vitnepsykologisk sakkyndighet i norsk rett: Hva vet norske psykologer og psykiatere om paliteligheten av vitners hukommelse? Tidsskr Norsk Psykologforen (2012) 49(4):338-47.
46. Magnussen S, Melinder A. What psychologists know and believe about memory: a survey of practitioners. Appl Cogn Psychol (2012) 26(l):54-60. doi:10.1002/acp.1795
47. Melinder A, Magnussen S. Psychologists and psychiatrists serving as expert witnesses in court: what do they know about eyewitness memory? Psychol Crime Law (2014).
48. Mirandola C, Ferruzza E, Cornoldi C, Magnussen S. Beliefs about memory among psychology students and their professors in psychodynamic clinical and experimental study programs. Eur Rev Appl Psychol (2013) 63(5):251-6. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2013.07.004
49. Patihis L, Ho LY, Tingen IW, Lilienfeld SO, Loftus EF. Are the "memory wars" over? A scientist-practitioner gap in beliefs about repressed memory. Psychol Sci (2014) 25(2):519-30. doi:10.1177/0956797613510718
50. Alonzo JD, Lane SM. Saying versus judging: assessing knowledge of eyewitness memory. Appl Cogn Psychol (2010) 24(9):1245-64. doi:10.1002/acp.l626
51. Cutler BL, Penrod SD. Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology, and the Law. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press (1995).
52. Devenport JL, Kimbrough CD, Cutler BL. Effectiveness of traditional safeguards against erroneous conviction arising from mistaken eyewitness identification. In: Cutler BL, editor. Expert Testimony on the Psychology of Eyewitness Identification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (2009). p. 51-68. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331974.003.003
53. United States v. Ash. 413 U.S. 300 (1972).
54. Narby DJ, Cutler BL. Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. J Appl Psychol (1994) 79(5):724-9. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.724
55. United States v. Telfaire. 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
56. Bornstein BH, Hamm JA. Jury instructions on witness identification. Court Rev (2012)48:48-53.
57. Greene E. Judge's instruction on eyewitness testimony: evaluation and revision. J Appl Soc Psychol (1988) 18(3):252-76. doi:10.111 l/j.1559-1816.1988. tb00016.x
58. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
59. Manson v. Braithwaite. 432 U.S. 98 (1977).
60. Cutler BL, Dexter HR, Penrod SD. Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. J Appl Soc Psychol (1990) 20(14):1197-207. doi:10.111 l/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00400.x
61. Ramirez G, ZembaD, Geiselman RE. Judges'cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. Am J Forensic Psychol (1996) 14(l):31-66.
62. State v. Henderson. 27 A.3d 872 (N.J.2011).
63. Berman M, Nicholson A, Yarbrough A, Hui C, Penrod S. (2014). Do issue-specific judicial instructions sensitize jurors to eyewitness identification accuracy? Paper Presented at the Meeting ofAPLS, New Orleans.
64. Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Dexter HR. The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law Hum Behav (1989) 13(3):311-32. doi:10.1007/BF01067032
65. Leippe MR. The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychol PublPolLaw (1995) l(4):909-59. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.909
66. Leippe MR, Eisenstadt D. The influence of eyewitness expert testimony on jurors' beliefs and judgments. In: Cutler BL, editor. Expert Testimony on the Psychology of Eyewitness Identification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (2009). p. 169-99. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331974.003.008
67. Leippe MR, Eisenstadt D, Rauch SM, Seib HM. Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. J Appl Psychol (2004) 89(3):524-41. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.524
68. Martire KA, Kemp RI. The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. Law Hum Behav (2009) 33(3):225-36. doi:10.1007/sl0979-008-9134-z
69. Wilford MM, Wells GL. Eyewitness system variables. In Cutler BL, editor. Reform of Eyewitness Identification Procedures. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (2013). p. 23-43.
70. Wells GL, Small M, Penrod S, Malpass RS, Fulero SM, Brimacombe CE. Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law Hum Behav (1998) 22(6):603-47. doi:10.1023/A:1025750605807
71. Wise RA, Fishman CS, Safer MA. How to analyze the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in a criminal case. Conn Law Rev (2009) 42:435-513.
72. Wise RA, Safer MA. A method for analyzing the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Court Rev (2012)48:22-34.
73. Murphy R, Safer MA, Wise RA, Holfeld B. Educating jurors about eyewitness evidence. Poster Presented at APS Convention. Washington, DC (2013).
74. Klobuchar A, Steblay NKM, Caligiuri HL. Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin County's blind sequential lineup pilot project. Card Publ Law Pol Ethics J (2006) 4:381-413.
75. Wells GL, Steblay NK, Dysart JE. A Test of the Simultaneous vs. Sequential Lineup Methods: An Initial Report of the AFS National Eyewitness Identification Field Studies. (2011). Available from: http://www.popcenter.org/library/reading/PDFs/lineupmetho ds.pdf
76. Wells GL, Quinlivan DS. Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court's reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law Hum Behav (2009) 33(l):l-24. doi:10.1007/sl0979-008-9130-3