Psy & Law Final

sequential

produces drastically less mistaken IDs

simultaneous

produces more correct and mistaken ids

Attention,

Attention must be assessed by self-report Feedback influences self-reports of attention

Instructions to the witness

Bias instructions result in more mistaken ID

estimator variables

Characteristics of the event or the witness Beyond the control of the criminal justice system Influence on eyewitness accuracy can only be estimated

change blindness

Continuous Innocent - steps behinds boxes, culprit reappears Discontinuous Innocent - different aisle, cut in video Target-absent lineups containing both innocents Either innocent more likely to be ID'd than any filler If witness does not notice change CI identified more often than DI

different types of decisions eyewitnesses can make

Correct Incorrect Filler Miss-identification

Safeguards against mistaken identifications

Cross-examination Attorneys need necessary information to be able to examine effectively Knowledge of factors that influence eyewitness performance Awareness of factors that influence accuracy of eyewitness memory Expert testimony of psychologists Judges believe that: Does not provide facts beyond common knowledge Open the gates to conflicting expert testimony Inappropriate weight to eyewitness evidence Cautionary jury instructions Describing the 5 criteria set forth in Manson for reliable IDs

Opportunity to view

Distance Exposure Duration After 25 feet, ID accuracy diminishes After 150 feet, ID accuracy close to zero More difficult at night and dark places

What are the three stages of memory involved in eyewitness memory

Encoding Storage Retrieval

State v. Henderson (2011)

Expanded the factors that courts must consider when judging suggestiveness of lineup procedures hint of procedural suggestiveness pretrial hearing for the evaluation of the overall suggestiveness Hearing evaluates both system and estimator variables ID suppressed or jury given special instructions

What are the causes of wrongful convictions?

Eyewitness errors Improper forensics False confessions Informants/snitches

Weapon focus

If a weapon is present, witnesses devote more attention to the weapon than to the perpetrator Exaggerated when the use of a weapon is surprising or unexpected Limits our ability to perceive other aspects of the situation Weapon or unusualness?

Cross-race identification

In general people are less accurate at describing and distinguish the features of those out side of there race

dentify, define, and know the effects of system variables

Instructions to the witness Lineup presentation (simultaneous vs. sequential) Lineup composition (match-to-description vs. match-to-suspect) Double-blind lineup administration

Effects of eyewitnesses on jurors

Jurors are unaware of factors that affect ID Only factor affecting judgments is confidence Unable to figure out what may be wrong with a lineup or photospread Not told about those eyewitnesses who could not identify the suspect

Court cases

Manson v. Braithwaite (1977) State v. Henderson (2011) Perry v. New Hampshire

confidence

On average, .41 correlation between certainty and accuracy Relationship stronger among choosers than non-choosers Smaller relationship than height and gender Only informative if collected immediately after identification Certainty can be bolstered by suggestive instructions or just taking someone to trial

Perry v. New Hampshire

Perry convicted on basis of ID suggestive circumstances, not suggestive police procedures unfavorable distance, poor lighting, and Perry was the only Black person standing beside police officers when the witness looked out of her window from over 100 feet in near darkness denied a pre-trial hearing on the reliability of the ID Supreme Court ruled that unreliable evidence is not unconstitutional the jury makes determinations of the reliability of evidence. the presence of counsel at postindictment lineups vigorous cross-examination jury instructions on both the fallibility of eyewitness identification and the requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt

Double-blind lineup administration

Reduces mistaken identity, administrator does not know who the suspect is

Manson v. Braithwaite (1977)

Reliability approach to eyewitness evidence Part I: Was ID unnecessarily suggestive per se? Not suggestive, then admitted as evidence, no problems Suggestive, then Part II Part II: Was ID nevertheless reliable? View Attention Certainty Accuracy of the Description Time lapse between crime and identification

Retention interval

The amount of time that passes between event and memory retrieval Accuracy rapidly decreases with passage of time Forgetting curve Underlies use of show-ups as identification tasks

Time to identification decision

Time to identification 10-12 second rule? (Dunning & Perretta, 2002) Varies across studies from 5-29 seconds (Weber, 2004) Alternative to traditional lineup: timed confidence judgments (Brewer et al., 2012, Psychological Science) Watch event 5 minutes to a week later Timed confidence judgments vs. sequential lineup 24% to 66% more accurate under new procedure Large differences between most confident and next most confident judgment indicated high-accuracy

system variables

Variables that are under the control of the criminal justice system Can be altered to improve witness accuracy

Methods for studying eyewitness identification accuracy, including the different types of decisions witnesses can make

Witness simulated or live event Participate in an identification task live lineup, videotaped lineup, photo array Vary features of the witnessing conditions? Vary how the lineup is conducted? Vary whether the perpetrator/culprit is in the lineup Target-present Target-absent

Lineup composition

match-to-description match-to-suspect

Lineup presentation

simultaneous sequential