From the lab to the police station. A successful application of eyewitness research.

The U.S. Department of Justice released the first national guide for collecting and preserving eyewitness evidence in October 1999. Scientific psychology played a large role in making a case for these procedural guidelines as well as in setting a scientific foundation for the guidelines, and eyewitness researchers directly participated in writing them. The authors describe how eyewitness researchers shaped understanding of eyewitness evidence issues over a long period of time through research and theory on system variables. Additional pressure for guidelines was applied by psychologists through expert testimony that focused on deficiencies in the procedures used to collect the eyewitness evidence. DNA exoneration cases were particularly important in leading U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to notice the eyewitness literature in psychology and to order the National Institute of Justice to coordinate the development of national guidelines. The authors describe their experience as members of the working group, which included prosecutors, defense lawyers, and law enforcement officers from across the country.

[1]  Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods , 1996 .

[2]  J. Chaiken,et al.  The Criminal Investigation Process , 1977 .

[3]  Kathy Pezdek,et al.  The effect of the cognitive interview on face identification accuracy: release from verbal overshadowing. , 1999 .

[4]  R. Lindsay,et al.  On Estimating the Diagnosticity of Eyewitness Nonidentifications , 1980 .

[5]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Eyewitness testimony: Civil and criminal , 1987 .

[6]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup , 1979 .

[7]  R. Fisher,et al.  ARE JURORS' PERCEPTIONS OF EYEWITNESS CREDIBILITY AFFECTED BY THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW? , 1999 .

[8]  M. Wogalter,et al.  Suggestiveness in photospread line‐ups: Similarity induces distinctiveness , 1992 .

[9]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Postdictors of eyewitness errors: can false identifications be diagnosed? , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[10]  K Pezdek,et al.  The effect of the cognitive interview on face identification accuracy: release from verbal overshadowing. , 1999, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  J. Bowers,et al.  Eyewitness Testimony: Were We Misled? , 1983 .

[12]  J. Wigmore,et al.  Convicting the Innocent: Errors of Criminal Justice , 1932 .

[13]  R L Stubblefield,et al.  Behavioral sciences and the law. , 1966, The American journal of orthopsychiatry.

[14]  J. Schooler,et al.  Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. , 1970, Psychological review.

[16]  Margaret Bull Kovera,et al.  Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. , 1999 .

[17]  David A. Kravitz,et al.  How effective is the motion-to-suppress safeguard? Judges' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[18]  D. Navon.  Selection of lineup foils by similarity to the suspect is likely to misfire , 1992 .

[19]  A. Yarmey,et al.  Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in showups and lineups , 1996 .

[20]  G. Wells,et al.  What do we know about eyewitness identification? , 1993, The American psychologist.

[21]  A. Levi.  Protecting innocent defendants, nailing the guilty: a modified sequential lineup , 1998 .

[22]  E. Ebbesen,et al.  Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness identification issues , 1986 .

[23]  R. Fisher,et al.  Enhancing enhanced eyewitness memory: Refining the cognitive interview. , 1987 .

[24]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? , 1983 .

[25]  G. Wells,et al.  Distortions in Eyewitnesses' Recollections: Can the Postidentification-Feedback Effect Be Moderated? , 1999 .

[26]  S. Lloyd-Bostock,et al.  Evaluating witness evidence : recent psychological research and new perspectives , 1983 .

[27]  Willem A. Wagenaar,et al.  Comparison of one-person and many-person lineups: A warning against unsafe practices. , 1992 .

[28]  Saul M. Kassin,et al.  The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. , 1989 .

[29]  Gordon H. Bower,et al.  A MULTICOMPONENT THEORY OF THE MEMORY TRACE , 1977 .

[30]  E. Loftus,et al.  On the permanence of stored information in the human brain. , 1980, The American psychologist.

[31]  Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes , 1994 .

[32]  Hugo Münsterberg,et al.  On the Witness Stand , 1908 .

[33]  An independent replication of the effectiveness of the cognitive interview , 1991 .

[34]  E. Loftus,et al.  Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory , 1974 .

[35]  Brian R. Clifford,et al.  The effects of the Cognitive Interview on recall, identification, confidence and the confidence/accuracy relationship , 1997 .

[36]  Relationship between accuracy of prior description and facial recognition. , 1985 .

[37]  J. Yuille,et al.  Lost but not forgotten details: repeated eyewitness recall leads to reminiscence but not hypermnesia. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[38]  D. Wright,et al.  Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line‐ups , 1996 .

[39]  R. Malpass.  Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups , 1981 .

[40]  G. Wells,et al.  Police Lineups as Experiments , 1990 .

[41]  J. Petersilia,et al.  The Criminal Investigation Process: Volume I: Summary and Policy Implications , 1975 .

[42]  F. Lösel,et al.  Psychology and law : international perspectives , 1992 .

[43]  Neil Brewer,et al.  Psychology and Policing , 1995 .

[44]  S. Kassin.  Eyewitness Identification Procedures: The Fifth Rule , 1998 .

[45]  Shaw,et al.  Increases in eyewitness confidence resulting from postevent questioning. , 1996 .

[46]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups , 1991 .

[47]  C. Davies,et al.  Wrongful imprisonment;: Mistaken convictions and their consequences , 1973 .

[48]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  The malleability of eyewitness confidence: co-witness and perseverance effects , 1994 .

[49]  Michael D. Robinson,et al.  How Not to Enhance the Confidence—Accuracy Relation: The Detrimental Effects of Attention to the Identification Process , 1998 .

[50]  G. Wells.  Eyewitness identification: A system handbook , 1988 .

[51]  L. Snyder,et al.  Facilitating the Communicative Competence of the Child Witness , 1999 .

[52]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  CHOOSING, CONFIDENCE, AND ACCURACY : A META-ANALYSIS OF THE CONFIDENCE-ACCURACY RELATION IN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION STUDIES , 1995 .

[53]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a Shift in Perspective. Technical Report No. 41. , 1977 .

[54]  G. Wells,et al.  EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION: Psychological Research and Legal Policy on Lineups , 1995 .

[55]  P. Ellsworth,et al.  Response biases in lineups and showups. , 1993 .

[56]  D. S. Lindsay,et al.  Other-race face perception. , 1991, The Journal of applied psychology.

[57]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Psychological issues in eyewitness identification. , 1996 .

[58]  Fredric D. Woocher.  Did Your Eyes Deceive You? Expert Psychological Testimony on the Unreliability of Eyewitness Identification , 1977 .

[59]  R. Wenk.  Review of: Connors et al. “Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence after Trial” , 1997 .

[60]  Peter Neufeld,et al.  Actual Innocence : Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted , 2000 .

[61]  Sena Garven,et al.  Co-witness Information Can Have Immediate Effects on Eyewitness Memory Reports , 1997, Law and human behavior.

[62]  E. Sagarin,et al.  Convicted but Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy , 1996 .

[63]  M. McCloskey,et al.  Misleading postevent information and memory for events: arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[64]  Lost but not forgotten details: repeated eyewitness recall leads to reminiscence but not hypermnesia. , 1994 .

[65]  J. Yuille,et al.  A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. , 1986, The Journal of applied psychology.

[66]  E. Sagarin,et al.  Guilty Until Proved Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy , 1986 .

[67]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases , 1988 .

[68]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. , 1979, The Journal of applied psychology.

[69]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Eyewitness testimony : psychological perspectives , 1984 .

[70]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: on land and underwater. , 1975 .

[71]  Roy S. Malpass,et al.  Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. , 1981 .

[72]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Verbal Descriptions of Faces From Memory: Are They Diagnostic of Identification Accuracy? , 1985 .

[73]  S. Penrod,et al.  Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluation commonsense evaluations. , 1997 .

[74]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Biased lineups: sequential presentation reduces the problem. , 1991, The Journal of applied psychology.

[75]  David A. Kravitz,et al.  How effective is the presence-of-counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability of biased lineup procedures. , 1996, The Journal of applied psychology.

[76]  R. Malpass,et al.  Enhancing eyewitness memory. , 1996 .

[77]  C. C. Brandt,et al.  Measuring lineup fairness , 1992 .

[78]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups , 1993 .

[79]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology and the Law , 1995 .

[80]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. , 1995 .

[81]  A. G. Goldstein,et al.  Frequency of eyewitness identification in criminal cases: A survey of prosecutors , 1989 .

[82]  R. Bull,et al.  The cognitive interview: A meta-analysis , 1999 .

[83]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. , 1973 .

[84]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Sequential lineup presentation : technique matters , 1991 .

[85]  R. Malpass,et al.  Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads , 1998 .

[86]  John S. Shaw,et al.  Repeated postevent questioning can lead to elevated levels of eyewitness confidence , 1996 .

[87]  S. Penrod,et al.  Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence , 1990 .

[88]  J. Brigham,et al.  Cross-Racial Identification , 1989 .

[89]  S. Penrod,et al.  Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: the state of the law and the science. , 1995, Behavioral sciences & the law.

[90]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  "Good, you identified the suspect": Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. , 1998 .

[91]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  Effects of integrative memorial and cognitive processes on the correspondence of eyewitness accuracy and confidence , 1980 .

[92]  R. Fisher,et al.  Memory-Enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive Interview , 1992 .

[93]  A. Baddeley,et al.  When does context influence recognition memory , 1980 .

[94]  Silence is not golden. , 1983 .

[95]  H. Creighton.  On the witness stand. , 1957, The American journal of nursing.

[96]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  The external validity of eyewitness identification research: Generalizing across subject populations , 1989 .

[97]  G. Wells.  The Psychology of Lineup Identifications1 , 1984 .

[98]  Measuring lineup fairness , 1999 .

[99]  C. Rogers.  Counseling and Psychotherapy , 1942 .

[100]  S. Christianson.  Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: a critical review. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[101]  G. Wells,et al.  Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. , 1986 .

[102]  Arye Rattner,et al.  Wrongful Conviction and the Criminal Justice System , 1988 .

[103]  R. Fisher,et al.  Field test of the Cognitive Interview: enhancing the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime. , 1989, The Journal of applied psychology.

[104]  R. Buckhout,et al.  Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory , 1990 .

[105]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  The Influence of Eyewitness Nonidentifications on Mock‐Jurors' Judgments of a Court Case1 , 1985 .

[106]  G. Wells.  Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. , 1978 .

[107]  N. Steblay,et al.  Social Influence in Eyewitness Recall: A Meta-Analytic Review of Lineup Instruction Effects , 1997 .

[108]  J. Parker,et al.  An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications , 1993 .

[109]  A. Levi.  Are Defendants Guilty If They Were Chosen in a Lineup? , 1998 .

[110]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses , 1989 .

[111]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups , 1993 .

[112]  Eyewitness Identification: Simulating the "Weapon Effect"* , 1989 .

[113]  Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Understanding bystander misidentifications: The role of familiarity and contextual knowledge , 1994 .

[114]  D. Godden,et al.  Context-dependent memory in two natural environments : On land under water , 1975 .

[115]  R. C. L. Lindsay,et al.  Default values in eyewitness descriptions , 1994 .

[116]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. , 1985 .

[117]  Patrick Devlin.  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases , 1976 .

[118]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Elimination lineups : An improved identification procedure for child eyewitnesses , 1999 .

[119]  Geoffrey R. Loftus,et al.  Some facts about “weapon focus” , 1987 .

[120]  Lewis Yablonsky,et al.  Crime and Delinquency , 1975 .

[121]  R. Lindsay,et al.  What price justice? , 1980 .

[122]  H. Egeth.  What Do We Not Know About Eyewitness Identification , 1993 .

[123]  Recommendations for properly conducted lineup identification tasks , 1994 .

[124]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Simultaneous Lineups, Sequential Lineups, and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and Children , 1997 .