Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PSYC 2400 > Chapter 5: Eyewitness Testimony > Flashcards

Chapter 5: Eyewitness Testimony Flashcards

1
Q

eyewitness testimony relies on _____

A

memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

stages of memory

A
  • Encoding: you perceive and pay attention to details in your environment
  • Short-term memory: a short-term holding facility with a limited capacity
  • Long-term memory: a long-term holding facility with a large capacity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

memory retrieval

A
  • Information in long-term memory can be retrieved as needed
  • Our memory can change each time we retrieve an event
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

two types of eyewitness memory retrieval

A

recall & recognition memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

recall memory

A

reporting details of a previously witnessed event or person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

recognition memory

A

determining whether a previously seen item or person is the same as what is currently being viewed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

how do researchers usually study eyewitness issues

A

by employing laboratory simulations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

laboratory simulations

A

expose a participant to an event and is later asked to describe what happened and the perpetrator involved. They may also be asked to examine a lineup

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

independent variables examined in laboratory simulations

A

estimator & system variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

estimator variables

A

variables that are present at the time of the crime and cannot be changed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

system variables

A

variables that can be manipulated to increase or decrease eyewitness accuracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Dependent variables examined in laboratory simulations

A
  • Recall of the event/crime
  • Recall of the perpetrator
  • Recognition of the perpetrator
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Recall of the crime or the perpetrator can be measured by ___

A

open-ended recall/ free narrative and direct question recall

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

open-ended recall/free narrative

A

witnesses are asked to either write or orally state all they remember about the event without the officer or experimenter asking questions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

direct question recall

A

witnesses are asked a series of specific questions about the crime or the perpetrator

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

A witness’ recall can be examined for ____

A
  • The amount of information reported
  • The type of information reported
  • The accuracy of the information reported
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Recognition of the perpetrator can be measured by ___

A

lineup

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

lineup

A

a set of people presented to the witness, who must state whether the perpetrator is present and, if so, which person it is

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

A witness’ recognition can be examined for

A
  • Accuracy of decision
  • Types of errors made
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

goal of interviewing eyewitnesses

A

to extract a complete and accurate report of what happened

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Fisher et al., 1987 interviewing eyewitnesses study

A

analyzed 11 tape-recorded interviews from a police department in Florida and found that officers tended to introduce themselves, ask the eyewitness to report what they remembered in an open-ended format, then ask the witnesses a series of direct questions to determine specific information, and finally, ask eyewitnesses if there was any additional information they could remember

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Problems with police officers’ approach to interviewing eyewitnesses

A
  • Police officers often interrupt eyewitnesses, which might prevent them from speaking or distract them
  • Police officers used short, specific questions, which were often irrelevant and resulted in short answers
  • Police officers tended to ask questions in a random order
  • Memory conformity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

memory conformity

A

when what one witness reports influences what another witness reports

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

the misinformation effect

A

a phenomenon where a witness who is presented with inaccurate information after an event will incorporate that misinformation into a subsequent recall task

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Loftus & Palmer, 1974 the misinformation effect and phrasing of questions study

A

had participants watch a video of a car accident and estimate the speed of the cars. They found that the participants estimated a higher speed when they used the word smashed, followed by collided, bumped, and contacted. A week later, participants who were questioned with the word smashed were more likely to recall seeing broken glass than other participants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

how do researchers study the misinformation effect?

A

Misinformation studies use a common paradigm, where participants are exposed to an event via slides, video, or life action and are given a series of questions about the event, some of which contain misinformation. They are then asked a series of questions about the event probing into the misinformation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Loftus, 1975 misinformation effect study

A

found that incorporating the number of demonstrators into the question posed to witnesses affected the number of demonstrators witnesses recalled seeing later

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

3 main explanations for the misinformation effect

A
  • Misinformation acceptance hypothesis
  • Source misattribution hypothesis
  • Memory impairment hypothesis
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

misinformation acceptance hypothesis

A

the incorrect information is provided because the witness guesses what the officer or experimenter wants the response to be

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Source misattribution hypothesis

A

the witness has two memories: the original and the misinformation. However, the witness cannot remember where each memory originates or the source of each

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Memory impairment hypothesis

A

the original memory is replaced with the new, incorrect information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Ways that witnesses are exposed to misinformation

A
  • A police officer makes assumptions about what occurred and inadvertently phrases a question consistent with that assumption
  • The witness overhears another witness’ statement and changes their report to make it consistent
  • A police officer may incorporate an erroneous detail from a previous witness’ interview
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

procedures that help police interview eyewitnesses

A
  1. hypnosis
  2. the cognitive interview
  3. recall of the perpetrator
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

hypnotically-refreshed memory

A

a phenomenon whereby a witness can produce more details than a non-hypnotized witness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

2 techniques for eyewitness hypnosis

A

age regression & television technique

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

age regression

A

the witness goes back in time and re-experiences the original event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

television technique

A

the witness imagines they are watching a television screen with the events being played as they were witnessed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

efficacy of hypnosis in eyewitness recall

A
  • Studies show that while individuals under hypnosis provide more details, those details are just as likely to be inaccurate as accurate
  • Hypnotized individuals are more suggestible to subtle cues by the interviewer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

what hypnosis technique might help with recall?

A

closing one’s eyes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

admissibility of hypnotic information in court

A

Courts do not permit information obtained by hypnosis to be used as evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

the cognitive interview

A

an interview procedure for use with eyewitnesses based on the principles of memory and retrieval

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

four memory retrieval techniques to increase recall

A
  • Reinstating the context
  • Reporting everything
  • Reversing order
  • Changing perspective
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

efficacy of cognitive interviews

A

Studies show that cognitive interviews produce the greatest amount of accurate information without an increase in inaccurate details

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

enhanced cognitive interview

A

an interview procedure that includes various principles of social dynamics in addition to the memory retrieval principles used in the original interview

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Additional components of the enhanced cognitive interview

A
  • rapport building
  • supportive interviewer behaviour
  • transfer of control
  • focused retrieval
  • witness-compatible questioning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

rapport building

A

An officer should spend time building rapport with the witness and make them feel comfortable and supported.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

supportive interviewer behaviour

A

A witness’ free recall should not be interrupted; pauses should be waited out by the officer, who should express attention to what the witness is saying.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

transfer of control

A

The witness, not the officer, should control the flow of the interview; the witness is the expert—that is, the witness, not the officer, was the person who saw the crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

focused retrieval

A

Questions should be open-ended and not leading or suggestive; after free recall, the officer should use focused memory techniques to facilitate retrieval.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

witness-compatible questioning

A

An officer’s questions should match the witness’ thinking; if the witness is talking about clothing, the officer should be asking about clothing.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

efficacy of cognitive interviews vs. enhanced cognitive interviews

A

There isn’t a statistical difference in the accuracy of the two types of cognitive interviews

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

why are some officers reluctant to use cognitive interviewing?

A

because it requires a lot of training and time, and the use of an appropriate environment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

accuracy of perpetrator descriptions

A
  • Perpetrator descriptions provided by witnesses tend to be limited in detail and accuracy
  • Hair colour, hairstyle, and gender tend to be reported most accurately, while eye colour and weight tend to be reported least accurately
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

staged crimes and perpetrator recall

A

Witnesses of staged crimes report more descriptors of the perpetrator than witnesses of real crimes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

written vs. oral statements and perpetrator recall

A

Asking witnesses to write out descriptions produced shorter and less accurate descriptions than when witnesses orally stated their descriptions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

A witness’ recognition memory can be tested by

A
  • Live lineups or photo arrays
  • Video surveillance records
  • Voice identification
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

suspect

A

A person the police “suspect” committed the crime, who may be guilty or innocent of the crime in question

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

perpetrator

A

The guilty person who committed the crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

impact of lineup identifiaction

A

it reduces the uncertainty of whether a suspect is the perpetrator beyond the verbal description provided

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

foils/distractions

A

Lineup members who are known to be innocent of the crime in question

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

similarity-to-suspect strategy

A
  • matches lineup members to the suspect’s appearance
  • makes it difficult to identify the perpetrator
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

match-to-description strategy

A

distractors are matched only on the items that the witness provided in their description

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

fair lineup

A

A lineup where the suspect does not stand out from the other lineup members

64
Q

how should we avoid a biased lineup?

A

if a feature is provided in the witness’ description but does not match the subject’s appearance, the distractors should match the suspect’s appearance on that feature

65
Q

target-present lineup

A

A lineup that contains the perpetrator

66
Q

target-absent lineup

A

A lineup that does not contain the perpetrator but rather an innocent suspect

67
Q

possible identification decisions of a target-present lineup

A
  • correct identification
  • false rejection
  • foil identification
68
Q

possible identification decisions of a target-absent lineup

A
  • foil identification
  • correct rejection
  • false identification
69
Q

correct decision in a target-present lineup

A

to make a correct identification

70
Q

correct decision in a target-absent lineup

A

to make a correct rejection

71
Q

foil identification

A

a known error to police, so the person involved will not be prosecuted

72
Q

false rejection

A

an unknown error that may result in the guilty suspect going free

73
Q

false identification

A

an unknown error that may result in the innocent suspect being prosecuted

74
Q

photo array

A

photographic lineups

75
Q

why are photo arrays used more often than live lineups?

A
  • They are less time-consuming to construct
  • They are portable
  • The suspect doesn’t have the right to counsel
  • The police don’t need to worry about the suspect’s behaviour drawing attention
  • They might make a witness less anxious
76
Q

benefit of video lineups

A

they allow witnesses to enlarge faces and focus on particular features

77
Q

identification and rejection rates of live vs. video-recorded lineups

A
  • Correct identification and rejection rates don’t differ across live and video-recorded lineups
  • For adolescents, video lineups have a slight advantage for correct rejections
78
Q

impact of passing through the lineup more than once on accuracy

A

Witnesses asking for additional passes through the lineup are more likely to guess, especially with foil identifications

79
Q

use of standards and perpetrator recall

A

The use of a standard does not help witnesses recall accurate information about a perpetrator

80
Q

simultaneous lineup

A

a common lineup procedure that presents all lineup members at one time to the witness

81
Q

what type of judgment is used in simultaneous lineups?

A

relative judgment

82
Q

relative judgment

A

the witness compares lineup members to one another and the person who looks most like the perpetrator is identified

83
Q

sequential lineup

A

Alternative lineup procedure where the lineup members are presented serially to the witness, and the witness must decide whether the lineup member is the perpetrator before seeing another member. Also, a witness cannot ask to see previously seen photos and is unaware of the number of photos to be shown

84
Q

what type of judgment is used in a sequential lineup?

A

absolute judgment

85
Q

absolute judgment

A

The witness compares each lineup member to their memory of the perpetrator to decide whether the lineup member is the perpetrator

86
Q

Lindsay & Wells, 1985 accuracy and lineup type

A
  • The study compared the identification accuracy rate achieved with the simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures. They found that correct identification rates did not differ across lineup procedures. However, correct rejection rates were significantly higher with a sequential lineup
  • Some researchers argue that the simultaneous and sequential lineups produce similar rejection rates
87
Q

Megreya et al., 2012 eye movements and lineup identification study

A

examined the eye movements of witnesses examining a lineup. Faces that were on the left side were looked at first and were more likely to be incorrectly identified as the target

88
Q

showup

A

an identification procedure that shows one person to the witness: the suspect

89
Q

problems with a showup

A

Researchers and courts have argued that in a showup, the witness is aware of who the police suspect is, which may increase their likelihood of making a false identification

90
Q

Gonzalez et al., 1993 witness rejection in showups study

A

found that witnesses were more likely to reject a showup than all members of a lineup

91
Q

Yarmey et al., 1996 false identification in showups study

A

found that lineups produced lower false-identification rates than showups

92
Q

Steblay et al., 2003 false identification in showups meta-analysis

A

conducted a meta-analysis and found that false identifications were higher with showups than lineups

93
Q

identification in field vs. photographic showups

A
  • Suspects are more likely to be identified in a field showup than in a photographic lineup
  • Consistent with the notion that showups are suggestive
94
Q

Wetmore et al., 2015 accuracy of showups study

A

showed participants a crime video followed by a showup or simultaneous lineup. Showups never resulted in higher accuracy, even when lineups were biased

95
Q

Two acceptable uses of a showup

A
  • Death-bed identification
  • If a suspect is apprehended immediately at or near the crime scene
96
Q

walk-by

A

identification procedure that occurs in a naturalistic environment. The police take the witness to a public location where the suspect is likely to be. Once the suspect is in view, the witness is asked whether they see the perpetrator

97
Q

biased lineup

A

a lineup that suggests whom the police suspect and thereby whom the witness should identify

98
Q

3 main types of biases increase false positives

A
  1. foil bias
  2. clothing bias
  3. instruction bias
99
Q

foil bias

A

the suspect is the only lineup member who matches the description of the perpetrator

100
Q

clothing bias

A

the suspect is the only lineup member wearing clothing similar to that worn by the perpetrator

101
Q

instruction bias

A

the police fail to mention to the witness that the perpetrator may not be present

102
Q

Charles Lindbergh case

A

Lindbergh identified Bruno Hauptmann as the suspect who kidnapped his infant son by voice identification. He recognized Hauptmann’s voice as the one he heard 3 years earlier when he paid the ransom

103
Q

Orchard & Yarmey, 1995 mock kidnapping and voice identification study

A

Had university students listen to a taped video of a mock kidnapped and found that:
1. Identification accuracy was higher with longer voice samples
2. Whispering significantly decreased identification accuracy
3. Distinctiveness interacted with whispering, influencing identification accuracy

104
Q

Oham et al., 2011 voice identification lineup study

A

exposed participants to a 40-second recording of an unfamiliar voice. 2 weeks later, they were presented with a seven-voice lineup, either target-present or target-absent. All conditions resulted in poor performance. The only condition in which participants performed better was the target-present condition with 11-13-year-olds

105
Q

Philippon et al., 2013 laughter identification study

A

investigated whether laughter would influence the accuracy of voice identification. They found that participants were no more likely to recognize a voice when it was accompanied by laughter or only the laughter was heard. When the target was absent, laughter with speech resulted in higher accuracy while in target-present situations, laughter alone resulted in more correct identifications

106
Q

impact of whispering on voice identification

A

The likelihood of a correct identification is decreased if a voice is changed by whispering or muffling, or through emotion

107
Q

impact of placement in a lineup on voice identification

A

If the target voice occurs later in the lineup, correct identification decreases compared with an earlier presentation

108
Q

impact of unfamiliar accents on voice identification

A

Participants are more accurate at voice identification when the speaker had a familiar vs. a different accent

109
Q

Pickel & Staller, 2012 detail and voice identification study

A

examined how a voice with an accent affected how witnesses described the perpetrator’s appearance. Witnesses viewing a perpetrator who spoke with an accent reported less developed physical descriptions of the perpetrator and were less accurate in identifying the voice. If the message spoken was more vs. less detailed, the witnesses provided fewer accurate details about what the perpetrator looked like. Increasing the threatening nature of the message led to more inaccurate descriptions of the perpetrator’s appearance

110
Q

Cook and Wilding, 1997 face and voice identification study

A

when the target’s face was visible when participants originally heard the voice at encoding, correct identification decreases greatly

111
Q

impact of the size of the lineup on voice identification

A

as the number of foils increased from 4 to 8 voices, correct identification decreased

112
Q

are several identifications better than one?

A

Pryke et al., 2004 found that exposing witnesses to more than one lineup, each consisting of a different aspect of the suspect, increased the ability to determine the reliability of an eyewitness’ identification of the suspect

113
Q

Neil v. Biggers

A

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the confidence of a witness should be taken as an indicator of accuracy

114
Q

overall impact of confidence on witness accuracy

A

There is a small positive correlation between accuracy and confidence, but there are many moderator variables that can increase or decrease this relation

115
Q

moderator variables of the confidence-accuracy relationship

A
  • Confidence has a particularly strong relationship with accuracy when the decision is made very quickly
  • When confidence is assessed at the time of initial identification, there is a strong relationship between confidence and accuracy
  • There is no relationship between confidence and accuracy when a “not here” decision is made
  • Post-identification feedback increases confidence and thereby affects the confidence-accuracy relationship
  • The more often you express a decision, the more your confidence increases and thereby affects the confidence-accuracy relationship
116
Q

Odinot et al., 2013 length of intervals and confidence study

A

found that a longer interval between viewing the video of a complex situation and answering questions about it was only associated with decreased confidence for incorrect answers, not correct answers

117
Q

Wright & Skagerberg, 2007 confidence and ratings of task difficulty study

A

found that eyewitnesses to actual crimes reported identifying the suspect as a more challenging task if they did not correctly identify the suspect

118
Q

Wells et al, 1998 on confidence in suspect identification

A

argue that police should ask witnesses for their confidence ratings immediately following their identification decision and before any feedback and that this rating should be used in court

119
Q

age as an estimator variable

A
  • Older adults make fewer correct identifications and fewer correct rejections than younger adults regardless of the type of lineup
  • Correct identification and correct rejection increases until older adulthood
  • Younger adults make more correct rejections when the perpetrator is also a young adult
120
Q

cross-race effect

A

the phenomenon of witnesses remembering their race faces with greater accuracy than faces from other races

121
Q

identification of own-race faces

A

Own-race faces produce higher correct identifications and lower false positives than other-race faces

122
Q

how does the cross-race effect impact one’s likelihood of making a selection in a lineup?

A

Both white and Indigenous people are more likely to make a selection when trying to identify a cross-race face

123
Q

do intoxicated participants display the cross-race effect?

A

Being intoxicated had a larger negative effect when recognizing same-race faces compared to other-race faces

124
Q

three common explanations for the cross-race effec

A
  1. attitude
  2. physiognomic homogeneity
  3. interracial contact
125
Q

attitudes

A

people with fewer prejudicial attitudes may be more inclined to distinguish among members of other races

126
Q

does research support the attitudes hypothesis?

A
  • Research does not support this explanation
  • Having prejudicial attitudes may be related to intergroup contact, which may help to explain the other-race effect
127
Q

Physiognomic homogeneity

A

suggests that some races have less variability in their faces

128
Q

does research support the physiognomic homogeneity hypothesis?

A
  • Research does not support this explanation
  • Some physical features may be more appropriate for discriminating across faces of certain races, and thus, people from other races may not pay attention to relevant features
129
Q

interracial contact

A

the more contact you have with other races, the better you will be able to identify them

130
Q

does research support the interracial contact hypothesis?

A

Some support for this hypothesis has been found, but further research is needed

131
Q

weapon focus

A

a term used to describe the phenomenon of a witness’ attention being focused on the perpetrator’s weapon rather than on the perpetrator

132
Q

two primary explanations for weapon focus

A
  1. the cue utilization hypothesis
  2. unusualness
133
Q

the cue utilization hypothesis

A

suggests that when emotional arousal increases, attentional capacity decreases

134
Q

who proposed the cue utilization hypothesis?

A

Easterbrook, 1959

135
Q

does research support the cue utilization hypothesis?

A

There is limited support for this hypothesis

136
Q

unusualness

A
  • Argues that weapons are unusual and thus attract a witness’ attention, preventing them from encoding other details
  • According to this theory, other objects might produce a weapon-focus effect
137
Q

Pickel, 1999 weapon focus study

A

found that participants provided less accurate descriptions of a man if he was carrying a gun in the parking lot rather than at a shooting range. The degree of the threat did not influence the descriptions of the man

138
Q

Carlson & Carlson, 2012 weapon focus and facial features study

A

found that weapon focus decreased if the perpetrator had a distinctive facial feature

139
Q

can training decrease weapon focus?

A

yes, participants can be trained to not focus on a weapon, reducing the weapon-focus effect

140
Q

meta-analysis findings of the weapon focus effect

A

Meta-analyses show that the weapon focus occurs in lab and real-world investigations. It can be influenced by the retention interval, exposure duration, and threat. Expert testimony may be useful to jurors to understand the weapon focus effect and the factors that influence it

141
Q

expert testimony on eyewitness issues controversy

A

Not all eyewitness experts agree as to whether there is sufficient reliability across eyewitness studies

142
Q

what aspects of eyewitness issues do researchers feel are reliable enough to have expert testimony presented in court?

A
  • lineup procedures
  • interview procedures
  • the confidence-accuracy relationship
143
Q

Ebbsen & Konecni, 1997 on expert testimony on eyewitness issues

A

argued that eyewitness experts are overconfident in their conclusions and outlined 3 weaknesses in eyewitness research that should limit its usefulness to real-world application and expert testifying

144
Q

Ebbsen & Konecni’s 3 weakenesses of eyewitness testimony

A
  • Studies examining the same issue produce different results
  • Most of the studies use university students; real-life witnesses vary in age and other demographic variables
  • Most studies allow a witness to view the perpetrator for approximately 6 seconds; in reality, witnesses may view the perpetrator for 5+ minutes
145
Q

Leippe’s arguments in support of eyewitness research

A
  • Eyewitness research uses many methodologies and types of participants
  • Many studies are highly reliable
146
Q

studies on the public’s knowledge of eyewitness issues

A

Many studies have suggested that the public may not be sufficiently knowledge about eyewitness issues to evaluate this evidence in court

147
Q

expert testimony on witnesses in the CJS

A

The Canadian justice system limits the testimony of eyewitness experts on issues in court

148
Q

R. v. McIntosh and McCarthy (1997)

A

the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled not to permit expert testimony on eyewitness identification issues

149
Q

R. v. Henderson (2009)

A

a Manitoba judge allowed a jury to hear expert testimony on the limitations of eyewitness identification in a murder case

150
Q

eyewitness identification and DNA exoneration

A

In more than 75% of DNA exoneration cases, the primary evidence used to convict was eyewitness identification

151
Q

innocence Canada

A
  • A project of pro bono lawyers who have been working to free wrongfully convicted people in Canada since 1993
  • Innocence Canada has freed over 22 innocent individuals since its founding, who served more than 190 years combined in prison for crimes they did not commit
152
Q

Wells et al.’s 4 guidelines for eyewitness evidence

A
  • The person who conducts the lineup or photo array should not know which person is the suspect
  • Eyewitnesses should be told explicitly that the criminal may not be present in the lineup, and therefore, witnesses should not feel that they must make an identification
  • The suspect should not stand out in the lineup as being different from the foils based on the eyewitnesses’ previous description of the criminal or based on other factors that would draw extra attention to the suspect
  • A clear statement should be taken from the eyewitnesses at the time of the identification and before any feedback as to their confidence that the identified person is the actual criminal
153
Q

Kassin’s additional rule for lineup identification

A

the entire lineup procedure should be recorded on video to ensure accuracy in the process, particularly the interactions between the officer and the witness

154
Q

Prof. Neil Brooks

A

prepared 38 Canadian guidelines titled Police Guidelines: Pretrial Eyewitness Identification Procedures, but they are not always followed

155
Q

Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory

A

made 43 recommendations for eyewitness testimony in light of the R. v. Sophonow, 1986 case

156
Q

4 of Peter Cory’s key recommendations

A
  • The photo lineup procedure with the witness should be videotaped or audiotaped from the point the officer greets the witness to the completion of the interview
  • Officers should inform witnesses that it is just as important to clear innocent suspects as it is to identify guilty suspects
  • The photo lineup should be presented sequentially
  • Officers should not discuss a witness’ identification decision with them

PSYC 2400 (20 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions