Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:42 am
Time: 3:42 am
Results for eyewitness identification
5 results foundAuthor: Innocence Project Title: Reevaluating Lineups: Why Witnesses Make Mistakes and How to Reduce the Chance of a Misidentification Summary: Eyewitness identification is among the most prevalent and persuasive evidence used in courtrooms. Eyewitness testimony that directly implicates the defendant is compelling evidence in any trial, but it is not error-proof. Jurors may not realize that confident, trustworthy witnesses can be mistaken. A single witness’s identification can be enough to obtain a conviction. Eyewitness identification also plays a key role in shaping investigations. In the immediate aftermath of a crime, an erroneous identification can derail police investigations by putting focus on an innocent person while the actual perpetrator is still on the streets. Once a witness identifies the suspect to police, whether or not that person actually committed the crime, investigators may stop looking for other suspects. Over 175 people have been wrongfully convicted based, in part, on eyewitness misidentification and later proven innocent through DNA testing. The total number of wrongful convictions involving eyewitness misidentifications exceeds this figure, given the widespread use of eyewitness testimony and the limited number of cases in which DNA evidence is available for post-conviction testing. Experts estimate that physical evidence that can be subjected to DNA testing exists in just 5-10% of all criminal cases. Even among that small fraction of cases, many will never have the benefit of DNA testing because the evidence has been lost or destroyed. DNA exonerations don’t just show a piece of the problem – they are a microcosm of the criminal justice system. Decades of empirical, peer-reviewed social science research reaffirms what DNA exonerations have proven to be true: human memory is fallible. Memory is not fixed, it can be influenced and altered. After the crime and throughout the criminal investigation, the witness attempts to piece together what happened. His memory is evidence and must be handled as carefully as the crime scene itself to avoid forever altering it. The Innocence Project identifies the common causes of wrongful convictions across DNA exoneration cases and has found eyewitness misidentification to be the leading cause. Details: New York: Innocence Project, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, 2010. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2010 at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Eyewitness_ID_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Eyewitness_ID_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 119739 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceDNA TypingEyewitness IdentificationLineupsWrongful - -Convictions |
Author: Wells, Gary L. Title: A Test of the Simultaneous vs. Sequential Lineup Methods: An Initial Report of the AJS National Eyewitness Identification Field Studies Summary: The significant role that mistaken eyewitness identifications have played in convictions of the innocent has led to a strong interest in finding ways to reduce eyewitness identification errors. Psychological scientists have been conducting laboratory studies on this problem for over 30 years and have proposed a number of possible reforms to the procedures used in conducting lineups. Most of the proposed reforms, including the critical requirement of double-blind administration (the administrator does not know the identity of the suspect), have not been considered controversial in principle and many jurisdictions across the United States have adopted them. The use of a double-blind (DB) sequential rather than a DB simultaneous lineup procedure, however, has engendered controversy, a controversy that has unnecessarily held back the adoption of non-controversial reforms in many jurisdictions. The sequential lineup shows lineup members to the witness one at a time and asks the witness to make a decision on each one before showing the next one, whereas the traditional simultaneous lineup shows the witness all lineup members at once. Controlled laboratory experiments consistently show that the DB sequential procedure results in a substantial reduction of mistaken identifications and a much smaller reduction in accurate identifications. Overall, the DB sequential lineup produces a better ratio of accurate identifications to mistaken identifications than the DB simultaneous procedure. Nevertheless, in May of 2006, a highly publicized field study in Illinois, directed by the Chicago Police Department not only called into question the sequential/simultaneous laboratory findings but raised concerns as to whether eyewitnesses in controlled experiments were a good approximation for actual eyewitnesses to serious crimes, a large share of which are victim-witnesses. Specifically, the Illinois study showed that the status quo method produced higher suspect identification rates and lower filler picks than did DB sequential lineups in two of the three cities that were tested. Lineup fillers are not suspects but instead are in the lineup to “fill it out” and create a fair procedure for the suspect. In a field experiment, the identification of fillers is the only witness response that can be definitively classified as an error. The Illinois study was quickly rejected by scientists for several reasons. Principal among the reasons were (a) that this field study confounded the simultaneous/sequential variable with non-blind versus double-blind testing, (b) there was no random assignment of cases to lineup procedure and later evidence from the Evanston site indicated that the “tougher” cases (e.g., cross-race, longer delay from crime to lineup) were more likely to be assigned to the sequential than to the simultaneous procedure, and (c) some unknown number of filler identifications were not recorded for the simultaneous lineups. Consequently, in September of 2006, the American Judicature Society convened a gathering of eyewitness scientists, lawyers, prosecutors, and police in Greensboro, NC, who developed what has become known as the “Greensboro Protocol.” The Greensboro Protocol was a set of guidelines for how to conduct a field experiment to test the simultaneous versus sequential issue and gather as much reliable data as possible on witness and event variables (e.g., type of crime, presence of a weapon, cross-race event, viewing conditions, previous acquaintance with the culprit, sobriety of the witness), and the actual administration of the lineup itself (e.g., time between crime and lineup, quality of lineup, the witness’s responses and statement of certainty). There was general agreement that the field study should feature a direct comparison of DB sequential and DB simultaneous procedures, true random assignment (the “gold standard” in scientific experiments), and the use of laptop computers. The use of laptop computers for administering the lineup and recording the witnesses responses was believed to be an especially important tool for conducting eyewitness field experiments because it could: 1) Ensure procedures were administered according to protocol (e.g., voice and printed pre-lineup instructions presented in every instance in a uniform fashion); 2) Reliably record all responses of the witness (e.g., no selectivity in deciding whether to make a record of a filler identification or lack of an identification); 3) Permit all the photos in a lineup to be preserved as part of the electronic record and reviewed subsequently by judges, juries, and scientists; 4) Randomly assign witnesses to conditions (e.g., whether a sequential or simultaneous procedure would be used); 5) Randomly determine order of the photos within each lineup; 6) Precisely record how long it took a witness to make an identification; 7) Require police officers to record systematically witness and event variables before the identification procedure was conducted; 8) Facilitate secure and contemporaneous recording of eyewitness data into the electronic information platforms of police departments; and 9) Enhance the confidence of prosecutors, judges, juries, and defense counsel that the eyewitness procedures were conducted fairly and in accordance with best practices. In short, there was an expectation that the design of this field study and the use of the laptop computers could produce a data set of unprecedented depth and detail beyond the sequential/simultaneous question. Details: Des Moines, IA: American Judicature Society, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://www.ajs.org/wc/pdfs/EWID_PrintFriendly.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ajs.org/wc/pdfs/EWID_PrintFriendly.pdf Shelf Number: 122890 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceEyewitness IdentificationPolice LineupsWitnesses |
Author: Pezdek, Kathy Title: A Preliminary Study of How Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys Are Affected by Eyewitness Factors Summary: This preliminary study attempted to assess how appraisals of the strength of eyewitness evidence affect plea bargaining decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. A sample of 93 defense attorneys and 46 prosecutors from matched counties in California participated. The attorneys had extensive experience practicing law and trying felony criminal cases in Superior Court. The attorneys were presented four scenarios in which two specific eyewitness factors – (a) same- versus cross-race identification and (b) prior contact or not – were experimentally manipulated in a factorial design. After reading each scenario, they were asked five questions regarding whether they would plea bargain the case, the lowest/highest plea bargain they would offer/accept, and their estimate of the probability that the defendant was guilty and the probability that they would win the case if it went to trial. This study attempted to experimentally assess how these typical decisions regarding plea bargaining are influenced by variations in the strength of two eyewitness factors, and the whether this pattern of results differs for prosecutors versus defense attorneys. Details: Claremont Graduate University, 2012. 46p. Source: Final Technical Report: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2012 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238136.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238136.pdf Shelf Number: 125057 Keywords: Criminal EvidenceCriminal ProceedingsDefense AttorneysEyewitness IdentificationPlea BargainingProsecutors |
Author: Steblay, Nancy K. Title: Double-Blind Sequential Police Lineup Procedures: Toward an Integrated Laboratory & Field Practice Perspective Summary: The project purpose was to join behavioral data from scientific research, current field experience, and new laboratory investigation to advance knowledge of best police lineup practice for law enforcement and research communities. The project was a collaborative effort between the Hennepin County (Minnesota) Attorneys Office and the PIs research laboratory. Three data collection and analysis components were completed: (1) Hennepin Countys pilot implementation of double-blind sequential lineup procedures, including 280 field lineups; (2) a laboratory evaluation of the quality of the Hennepin County lineups; and (3) an experimental laboratory test of how revisions to prescribed lineup protocol affect eyewitness lineup decisions. The Hennepin County (HC) results indicate a successful application of double-blind sequential lineups to street investigations. Double-blind sequential lineups are now established county-wide, providing a standardized scientifically-based lineup procedure that has been demonstrated to be practicable in real cases. HC field data and laboratory test data converged to demonstrate increased misidentifications when a witness is allowed to view the lineup more than once. The lab study also revealed how reduced lineup sizeattrition due to the witnesss recognition of fillerscan negatively affect eyewitness identification accuracy. Completed grant objectives included: (1) Descriptive data providing the first available baseline measure for blind sequential field lineup practice; (2) Summary of the field lineup implementation process; (3) A laboratory test of the impact on eyewitness decisions of an opportunity for repeated viewing of the sequential lineup (4) A laboratory test of the effect on eyewitness decisions of a reduction in lineup size through witness familiarity with fillers; (5) Integration of laboratory and field data to generate practical, empirical, and theoretical knowledge of effective lineup procedure; and (6) Practical and scholarly presentations and publications as appropriate to law enforcement professionals, the psycho-legal research community, and the NIJ Data Resource Program. Details: Final report to the U.S. Department of Justice, 2007. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2014 at: http://web.augsburg.edu/~steblay/March2007_Final_NIJ_report.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://web.augsburg.edu/~steblay/March2007_Final_NIJ_report.pdf Shelf Number: 132702 Keywords: Eyewitness IdentificationEyewitnessesPolice Lineups |
Author: Steblay, Nancy K. Title: Reduction of False Convictions through Improved Identification Procedures: Further Refinements for Street Practice and Public Policy Summary: The project purpose was to enhance the quality and probative value of forensic eyewitness memory evidence acquired through police lineup procedures. Specific objectives were: (1) An updated meta-analytic review of research comparing simultaneous to sequential lineup formats; an evaluation of the sequential superiority effect and articulation of factors that moderate this effect; (2) (3) Controlled laboratory testing of the impact on eyewitness accuracy of three individual lineup procedural components: relaxation of the Yes/No dichotomous response requirement of the sequential lineup procedure (to allow I'm not sure responses); an Appearance Change Instruction to eyewitnesses; and use of multiple identification tasks with the same witness; (3) Collection and analysis of data in collaboration with the Tucson (Arizona) Police Department to compare eyewitness performance on lineup identifications under double-blind simultaneous versus double-blind sequential lineup procedures. This research integrated these three informational components to generate refined recommendations for field practice and public policy. Sequential lineup superiority was established in both laboratory (meta-analysis) and a field test. In addition, the new laboratory data indicate a positive benefit on eyewitness identification accuracy of a not-sure response option for witnesses, only minimal impact of an Appearance Change Instruction, and a significant negative outcome from repeated lineups Details: Final report to the U.S. Department of Justice, 2012. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 24, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249006.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249006.pdf Shelf Number: 136567 Keywords: Eyewitness IdentificationLineupsPolice Policies and ProceduresWitnesses |