Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Psychological science has come to play an increasingly important role in the legal system by informing the court through expert testimony and by shaping public policy. In recent years, psychological research has driven a movement to reform the procedures that police use to obtain eyewitness identification evidence. This reform movement has been based in part on an argument suggesting that recommended procedures reduce the risk of false identifications with little or no reduction in the rate of correct identifications. A review of the empirical literature, however, challenges this no-cost view. With only one exception, changes in eyewitness identification procedures that reduce the risk of false identification of the innocent also reduce the likelihood of correct identification of the guilty. The implication that criminals may escape prosecution as a result of procedures implemented to protect the innocent makes policy decisions far more complicated than they would otherwise be under the no-cost view. These costs (correct identifications lost) and benefits (false identifications avoided) are discussed in terms of probative value and expected utility.

Keywords

eyewitness identification law enforcement public policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Bar Association. (2004, August). American Bar Association statement of best practices for promoting the accuracy of eyewitness identification procedures [Report #111C]. Retrieved from http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/CR209700/relatedresources/ABAEyewitnessIDrecommendations.pdf. Washington, DC: Author.

Behrman

B. W.

Davey

S. L.

(2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475–491. doi:10.1023/A:101284083184610.1023/A:1012840831846

Berlin

(1958). Two concepts of liberty: An inaugural lecture delivered before the University of Oxford on 31 October, 1958. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Berlin

(1969). Four essays on liberty. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Biedermann

Bozza

Taroni

(2008). Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: Underlying logic and argumentative implications. Forensic Science International, 177, 120–132.

Blackstone

(1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. II, Book IV. New York, NY: Duyckinck, Long, Collins & Hannay, and Collins & Co.

Brewer

Palmer

M. A.

(2010). Eyewitness identification tests. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 77–96. doi:10.1348/135532509X41476510.1348/135532509X414765

Brewer

Wells

G. L.

(2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11–30. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.12.1.1110.1037/1076-898X.12.1.11

Bushway

S. D.

Redlich

(2010, November). The role of evidence in the value of plea bargains. Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

10.

Calandra

Carey

J. E.

(2005). Field guide for the California peace officers legal sourcebook. Sacramento: California District Attorneys Association.

11.

Carlson

Gronlund

S. D.

Clark

S. E.

(2008). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 118–128. doi:10.1037/1076–898X.14.2.11810.1037/1076–898X.14.2.118

12.

Ceci

S. J.

Friedman

R. D.

(2000). The suggestibility of children: Scientific research and legal implications. Cornell Law Review, 86, 33–108.

13.

Clark

S. E.

(2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629–654. doi:10.1002/acp.89110.1002/acp.891

14.

Clark

S. E.

(2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 395–424. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-5690-710.1007/s10979-005-5690-7

15.

Clark

S. E.

Davey

S. L.

(2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151–172. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-2418-710.1007/s10979-005-2418-7

16.

Clark

S. E.

Erickson

M. A.

Breneman

(2011). Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 364–380. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9245-110.1007/s10979-010-9245-1

17.

Clark

S. E.

Godfrey

R. D.

(2009). Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 22–42. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.1.2210.3758/PBR.16.1.22

18.

Clark

S. E.

Howell

R. T.

Davey

S. L.

(2008). Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 187–218. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9082-410.1007/s10979-006-9082-4

19.

Cole

S. A.

(2001). Suspect identities: A history of fingerprinting and criminal investigation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Cooley

(2007, July). Letter to Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas, opposing California SB 756. Retrieved from ccfaj.org/legislation-2007-SB756.html

21.

Cullison

A. D.

(1969). Probability analysis of judicial fact-finding: A preliminary outline of the subjective approach. Toledo Law Review, 1, 538–598.

22.

Dean

M. E.

(2006). An innocent deception: Placebo controls in the St. Petersburg homeopathy trial, 1829-1830. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 375–376.

23.

DeKay

M. L.

(1996). The difference between Blackstone-like error ratios and probabilistic standards of proof. Law & Social Inquiry, 21, 95–132. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.1996.tb00013.x10.1111/j.1747-4469.1996.tb00013.x

24.

Devenport

J. L.

Penrod

S. D.

Cutler

B. L.

(1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluating commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 338–361. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.33810.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.338

25.

Douglass

A. B.

McQuiston-Surrett

(2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses’ awareness on the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 991–1007. doi:10.1002/acp.125310.1002/acp.1253

26.

Dror

Rosenthal

(2008). Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 900–903. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00762.x10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00762.x

27.

Elder

H. W.

(1989). Trials and settlements in the criminal courts: An empirical analysis of dispositions and sentencing. Journal of Legal Studies, 18, 191–208.

28.

Farmer

J.J.

Jr. (2001). Attorney General guidelines for preparing and conducting photo and live lineup identification procedures. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/photoid.pdf

29.

Findley

K. A.

(2008). Toward a new paradigm of criminal justice: How the innocence movement merges crime control and due process. Texas Tech Law Review, 41, 1–41.

30.

Friedman

R. D.

(1986). A close look at probative value. Boston University Law Review, 66, 733–759.

31.

Fulero

S. M.

(2009). System and estimator variables in eyewitness identification: A review. In Krauss

D. A.

Lieberman

J. D.

(Eds.), Psychological expertise in court (pp. 57–78). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

32.

Garrett

(2008). Judging innocence. Columbia Law Review, 108, 55–142.

33.

Greathouse

S. M.

Kovera

M. B.

(2009). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 70–82. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x

34.

Green

D. M.

Swets

J. A.

(1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.

35.

Gronlund

S. D.

Carlson

C. A.

Dailey

S. B.

Goodsell

C. A.

(2009). Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 140–152. doi:10.1037/a001508210.1037/a0015082

36.

Gross

S. R.

(1987). Loss of innocence: Eyewitness identification and proof of guilt. Journal of Legal Studies, 16, 395–453.

37.

Gross

S. R.

Jacoby

Matheson

D. J.

Montgomery

Patil

(2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 523–560.

38.

Hastie

(1993). Algebraic models of juror decision processes. In Hastie

(Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 84–115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Hedges

L. V.

Vevea

J. L.

(1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.48610.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486

40.

Hope

(2010). Eyewitness testimony. In Towl

G. J.

Crighton

D. A.

(Eds.), Forensic psychology (pp. 161–177). Chichester, UK: Wiley & Sons.

41.

Kaplan

(1968). Decision theory and the fact-finding process. Stanford Law Review, 20, 1065–1092.

42.

Kaye

D. H.

(1986). Quantifying probative value. Boston University Law Journal, 66, 761–766.

43.

Kaye

D. H.

Koehler

J. J.

(2003). The misquantification of probative value. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 645–659. doi:10.1023/B:LAHU.0000004892.94380.8810.1023/B:LAHU.0000004892.94380.88

44.

Keeney

R. L.

Raiffa

(1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York, NY: Wiley.

45.

Koehler

J. J.

(1996). On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence; Frequencies, likelihood ratios and error rates. University of Colorado Law Review, 67, 859–886.

46.

Laudan

(2006). Truth, error, and criminal law. New York, NY: Cambridge.

47.

Laudan

Saunders

H. D.

(2009). Re-thinking the criminal standard of proof: Seeking consensus about the utilities of trial outcomes. International Commentary on Evidence, 7, 1–34.

48.

Leippe

M. R.

Eisenstadt

Rauch

S. M.

(2009). Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194–212. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9135-y10.1007/s10979-008-9135-y.

49.

Lempert

R. O.

(1977). Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review, 75, 1021–1057.

50.

Lillquist

(2002). Recasting reasonable doubt: Detection theory and the virtues of variability. University of California Davis Law Review, 36, 85–197.

51.

Lillquist

(2007). Improving accuracy in criminal cases. University of Richmond Law Review, 41, 897–933.

52.

Lindsay

R. C. L.

Lea

J. A.

Nosworthy

G. J.

Fulford

J. A.

Hector

LeVan

Seabrook

(1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 791–802.

53.

Lindsay

R. C. L.

Mansour

J. K.

Beaudry

J. L.

Leach

Bertrand

M. I.

(2009). Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 13–24. doi:10.1348/135532508X38270810.1348/135532508X382708

54.

Lindsay

R. C. L.

Pozzulo

J. D.

(1999). Sources of eyewitness identification error. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 347–360. doi:10.1016/S0160-2527(99)00014-X10.1016/S0160-2527(99)00014-X

55.

Lindsay

R. C. L

Wells

G. L.

(1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303–313. doi:10.1007/BF0104062210.1007/BF01040622

56.

Lindsay

R. C. L.

Wells

G. L.

(1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.55610.1037/0021-9010.70.3.556

57.

Loftus

E. F.

Miller

D. G.

Burns

H. J.

(1978). Semantic integration of verbal information in a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 19–31. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.1.1910.1037/0278-7393.4.1.19

58.

Luus

C. A. E.

Wells

G. L.

(1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43–57.

59.

Lyon

T. D.

Koehler

J. J.

(1996). The relevance ratio: Evaluating the probative value of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Cornell Law Review, 82, 43–78.

60.

MacLin

O. H.

Meissner

C. A.

Zimmerman

L. A.

(2005). PC eyewitness: A computerized framework for the administration and practical application of research in eyewitness psychology. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 324–334. doi:10.3758/BF0319270010.3758/BF03192700

61.

Macmillan

N. A.

Creelman

C. D.

(2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

62.

Malpass

R. S.

(2006). A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 394–418. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.12.4.39410.1037/1076-8971.12.4.394

63.

McQuiston-Surrett

Malpass

R. S.

Tredoux

C. G.

(2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 137–169. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.12.2.13710.1037/1076-8971.12.2.137

64.

Memon

Higham

P. A.

(1999). A review of the cognitive interview. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 177–196. doi:10.1080/1068316990841500010.1080/10683169908415000

65.

Milanich

P. G.

(1981). Case/comment: Decision theory and standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 87–96.

66.

Miller

L. S.

(1984). Bias among forensic document examiners: A need for procedural changes. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 407–411.

67.

Murdock

B. B.

Ogilvie

J. C.

(1968). Binomial variability in short-term memory. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 256–260. doi:10.1037/h002625910.1037/h0026259

68.

Packer

H. L.

(1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113, 1–68.

69.

Penrod

(2007). Letter to California Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas, by the San Bernardino County Sheriff, opposing California Senate Bill 756. Retrieved from ccfaj.org/legislation-2007-SB756.html.

70.

Risinger

D. M.

(2007). Innocents convicted: An empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97, 761–806.

71.

Risinger

D. M.

Saks

M. J.

Thompson

W. C.

Rosenthal

(2002). The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review, 90, 1–56.

72.

Rivers

W. H. R.

Webber

H. N.

(1907). The action of caffeine on the capacity for muscular work. Journal of Physiology, 36, 33–47.

73.

Rosenthal

Rosnow

R. L.

(2008). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

74.

Rosnow

R. L.

Rosenthal

(2003). Effect sizes for experimenting psychologists. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 221–237. doi:10.1037/h008742710.1037/h0087427

75.

Rush

R. A.

Clark

S. E.

(2010). Social contagion of correct and incorrect information in memory. Unpublished manuscript.

76.

Russano

M. B.

Dickinson

J. J.

Greathouse

S. M.

Kovera

M. B.

(2006). Why don’t you take another look at number three? Investigator knowledge and its effects on eyewitness confidence and identification decisions. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 4, 355-379.

77.

Russano

M. B.

Meissner

C. A.

Narchet

F. M.

Kassin

S. M.

(2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481–486.

78.

Saks

M. J.

Constantine

Dolezal

Garcia

(2001). Model prevention and remedy of erroneous convictions act. Arizona State Law Journal, 33, 669–718.

79.

Saks

M. J.

Faigman

D. L.

(2008). Failed forensics: How forensic science lost its way and how it might yet find it. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 149–171.

80.

Savage

L. J.

(1954). The foundations of statistics. New York, NY: Wiley.

81.

Scheck

B. C.

Edwards

E. R.

McNamara

J. M.

(2010). Eyewitness identification science post-Manson: An explosion of robust and rigorous research. State of New Jersey v. Larry R. Henderson, Remand Hearing.

82.

Sherman

(1984). Experiments in police discretion: Scientific boon or dangerous knowledge? Law and Contemporary Problems, 47(4), 61–81.

83.

Sherman

(1998). Evidence-based policing: Ideas in American policing. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

84.

Starkie

(1876). A practical treatise on the law of evidence. Philadelphia, PA: Johnson.

85.

State of New Jersey v. Larry R. Henderson, A-8–08 (2010).

86.

Steblay

N. M.

(1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–297. doi:10.1023/A:102489073205910.1023/A:1024890732059

87.

Steblay

N. K.

Dietrich

H. L.

Ryan

S. L.

Raczynski

J. L.

James

K. A.

(2011). Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 252–274. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9236-210.1007/s10979-010-9236-2

88.

Steblay

N. K.

Dysart

Fulero

Lindsay

R. C. L.

(2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459–473. doi:10.1023/A:101288871500710.1023/A:1012888715007

89.

Steblay

N. K.

Dysart

J. E.

Wells

G. L.

(2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99–139. doi:10.1037/a002165010.1037/a0021650

90.

Stovall v. Denno. (1967). 388 U.S. 293.

91.

Sunshine

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 555–589.

92.

Swets

J. A.

Dawes

R. M.

Monahan

(2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1–25. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.00110.1111/1529-1006.001

93.

Thatcher

(2001). Policing is not a treatment: Alternatives to the medical model of police research. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 38, 387–415.

94.

Thibaut

J. W.

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

95.

Thibaut

Walker

(1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66, 541–566.

96.

Thibaut

Walker

LaTour

Houlden

(1974). Procedural justice as fairness. Stanford Law Review, 26, 271–1289.

97.

Thompson

S. G.

(2008). What price justice? The importance of costs to eyewitness identification reform. Texas Tech Law Review, 41, 33–63.

98.

Thompson-Cannino Cotton

Torneo

(2009). Picking cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

99.

Tribe

L. H.

(1971). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review, 84, 1329–1393.

100.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

101.

Tyler

T. R.

Fagan

(2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–275.

102.

Tyler

T. R.

Huo

Y. J.

(2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell-Sage Foundation.

103.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: Author.

104.

U.S. House of Representatives. (2008). Federal rules of evidence. Washington, DC: Author.

105.

Volokh

(1997). n guilty men. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 146, 173–211.

106.

von Neumann

Morgenstern

(1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

107.

Wagenaar

W. A.

Veefkind

(1992). Comparison of one-person and many-person lineups: A warning against unsafe practices. In Losel

Bendre

Bliesner

(Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 275–285). Berlin, Germany: Walter De Gruyter.

108.

Wells

G. L.

(1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1984.tb02223.x10.1111/j.1559-1816.1984.tb02223.x

109.

Wells

G. L.

(2006). Eyewitness identification: Systemic reforms. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 615–643.

110.

Wells

G. L.

Lindsay

R. C. L.

(1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776–784. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.77610.1037/0033-2909.88.3.776

111.

Wells

G. L.

Memon

Penrod

S. D.

(2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x

112.

Wells

G. L.

Olson

E. A.

(2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155–167. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.8.3.15510.1037/1076-898X.8.3.155

113.

Wells

G. L.

Seelau

E. P.

(1995). Eyewitness identification: Psychological research and legal policy on lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 765–791. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.76510.1037/1076-8971.1.4.765

114.

Wells

G. L.

Small

Penrod

Malpass

R. S.

Fulero

S. M.

Brimacombe

C. A. E.

(1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647. doi:10.1023/A:102575060580710.1023/A:1025750605807

115.

Wells

G. L.

Steblay

N. K.

Dysart

J. E.

(2011). A test of the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup methods: An initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field studies. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/Wells_articles_pdf/EWID_PrintFriendly.pdf

116.

Wickens

T. D.

(2002). Elementary signal detection theory. New York, NY: Oxford.

117.

Wisconsin v. Dubose. (2005). 272 Wis. 2d 856, 679 NW 2d 927.

118.

Wright

D. B.

McDaid

A. T.

(1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75–84. doi:10.1348/00071260016178110.1348/000712600161781

119.

Wright

D. B.

Skagerberg

E. M.

(2007). Postidentification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172–178. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01868.x10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01868.x

120.

Yarmey

A. D.

Yarmey

M. J.

Yarmey

A. L.

(1996). Accuracy of eyewitness identification in showups and lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 459–477. doi:10.1007/BF0149898110.1007/BF01498981

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.04 MB

0.01 MB

0.04 MB

0.05 MB

Costs and Benefits of Eyewitness Identification Reform

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material