What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and US judges

Abstract

We surveyed 157 Norwegian judges about their knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony, and compared their answers to a prior survey of 160 US judges. Although the Norwegian judges were somewhat more knowledgeable than the US judges, both groups had limited knowledge of eyewitness testimony. The Norwegian judges, like the US judges, frequently differed from eyewitness experts in their responses to such important issues as whether eyewitness confidence is related to identification accuracy at trial and what is the best method for conducting identification procedures. As was true for the US judges, more knowledgeable Norwegian judges had many of the beliefs that may be necessary for reducing and mitigating the effects of eyewitness error. The results suggest that increasing judges’ knowledge of eyewitness testimony may be an important component of the solution to eyewitness error.     

Can a witness report hearsay evidence unintentionally? The effects of discussion on eyewitness memory

Abstract

When eyewitnesses are exposed to misinformation about an event from a co-witness, they often incorporate this misinformation in their recall of the event. The current research aimed to investigate whether this memory conformity phenomenon is due to change in the witness's memory for the event, or to social pressures to conform to the co-witness's account. Participants were shown a crime video and then asked to discuss the video in groups, with some receiving misinformation about the event from their discussion partners. After a one-week delay some participants were warned about possible misinformation before all participants provided their own account of the event. In Study 1, participants made remember/know judgments about the items recalled, and in Study 2 they indicated the source of their memories. Co-witness information was incorporated into participants’ testimonies, and this effect was not reduced by warnings or source monitoring instructions, suggesting memory change may have occurred. However, there was some indication that remember/know judgments may help distinguish between ‘real’ memories and co-witness information.     

Age differences (or lack thereof) in discriminability for lineups and showups

Previous research reveals that showups are an inferior eyewitness identification procedure to lineups, but no single study has compared younger and older adults' identification decisions for both of these procedures. We had witnesses watch a mock crime video and then make an identification decision from a fair lineup, a biased lineup, or a showup that contained the perpetrator or a designated innocent suspect. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that identification accuracy was higher from a lineup than from a showup for both age groups, even if the lineup was biased. In addition, calibration curves revealed that witnesses were underconfident when choosing from a fair lineup but overconfident when choosing from a showup. These results reinforce prior research asserting the superiority of lineups over showups.     

Reinforced self-affirmation as a method for reducing the eyewitness misinformation effect

The misinformation effect occurs when an eyewitness includes information in their account that is incongruent with the event they witnessed, and stems from being exposed to incorrect external sources. Yet little research has been undertaken on techniques that could protect eyewitnesses from the influence of misinformation, despite the dangerous consequences of distorted testimony. In this article, a method of enhancing self-confidence, called reinforced self-affirmation (RSA), was proven to reduce the misinformation effect in five experiments. First, participants watched or heard an original event take place. They were then exposed to post-event material containing false information about that event, and finally they were given a memory test about the original material. The RSA, which took place either before the post-event material or before the final test, consisted of self-affirmation (recalling the greatest achievements in life) and external positive feedback (simulated ‘good’ results in a memory test or fake favourable results on personality tests). A meta-analysis of all five experiments revealed that the overall effect of RSA on reducing the misinformation was significant (effect size of 0.94), suggesting that this technique has the potential to be developed for practical use to make eyewitnesses less vulnerable to misinformation.     

Plea bargaining and appraisals of eyewitness evidence by prosecutors and defense attorneys

A sample of defense attorneys and prosecutors from matched California counties participated in a two-part study. Study 1A reports the results of a survey regarding how influential each of the 17 eyewitness factors is in affecting the accuracy of real eyewitness identifications. Generally, both attorney groups considered all eyewitness factors to be influential; on only 6 of the 17 factors were defense attorneys more likely than prosecutors to provide higher importance ratings. In Study 1B, the attorneys answered questions regarding their willingness to plea bargain after reading each of four scenarios in which (1) same- versus cross-race identification and (2) whether the perpetrator was familiar were experimentally manipulated. Both eyewitness factors influenced plea bargaining decisions, and effects were generally consistent for both attorney groups. Results confirm that plea bargaining decisions at least by defense attorneys are made ‘in the shadow of the trial,’ and that appraisals of the strength of eyewitness evidence play a significant role in these decisions.     

Eyewitness identification procedures for multiple perpetrator crimes: a survey of police in Sweden,Belgium, and the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

A considerable proportion of crimes involve multiple perpetrators. Yet, little is known about how police officers construct, administer, and record eyewitness identification procedures for multiple suspects. An online survey of law enforcement agents in Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands (N?=?51) was conducted to obtain an initial understanding of police perceptions of prevalence and characteristics of multiple perpetrator crimes, and to examine identification procedure practices given the little to no guidance provided for police. Practice converged when it came to the use of sequential, photographic lineups, but diverged between and within countries on whether or not suspects of multiple perpetrator crimes should be placed in separate lineups. Results specifically highlight contextual cuing as one critical area for future research in identification for multiple perpetrator crimes (i.e. placing multiple suspects in the same lineup or asking eyewitnesses to look for a specific suspect).