Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:11 am
Time: 3:11 am
Results for lineups
3 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: Innocence Project of Texas Title: Dog Scent Lineups: A Junk Science Injustice Summary: A dog-scent lineup consists of matching a "scent" sample from a crime scene to a "scent" sample from a suspect by a dog. The practice has been used in several states, including Alaska, Florida, New York, and Texas. We know that dogs have an incredibly acute sense of smell, but the major problem has been with the handlers of these dogs, who have been proven to be fakes and charlatans. Details: Lubbock, TX: Innocence Project of Texas, 2009. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 4, 2015 at: http://www.ipoftexas.org/Websites/ipot/images/IPOT_Dog_Scent_Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.ipoftexas.org/Websites/ipot/images/IPOT_Dog_Scent_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134540 Keywords: Dog Scent Lineups (Texas)DogsInnocence ProjectLineups |
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 |