Eyewitness ID System - complete

Question 1

What is the importance of Eyewitness ID?

Answer 1

Eyewitness testimonies can be used as evidence in criminal trials
Most persuasive factor for jurors when deciding guilt or innocence of suspect Most incriminating evidence aside from confession
Police more likely to pursue a case if they have an eyewitness and a jury can be persuaded by a witness

Question 2

What errors occur in Eyewitness ID?

Answer 2

Wells et al (1998) report 40 cases involving men wrongfully convicted of rape and were later exonerated by DNA - 90% were based on ID errors

By 2003 more than 100 people exonerated - 75% victims of mistaken ID

Innocence Project

Question 3

What factors influence eyewitness ID?

Answer 3

Wells, 1978
Estimator Variables - CJS cannot control for

System Variables - CJS does have control over

Question 4

What examples are there of System Variables?

Answer 4

PACE Code D
Construction
Media 
Presentation
Instructions
Administration

Question 5

What is PACE Code D ?

Answer 5

Codes of practice for the identification of persons by police officers

Annexes contain guidelines for the conduct of identification procedures
A - Video ID
B- ID parade
C- Group ID

Question 6

What is the purpose of a line-up?

Answer 6

1. A fair test of recognition for the witness

2. The line-up needs to protect an innocent suspect

Question 7

Explain PACE Code D: Obtaining ID evidence

Answer 7

Consists of at least 8 people and suspect who resemble suspect (demographics)

Question 8

What are the main functions of foils?

Answer 8

Luus and Wells, 1981
Distractors help identify witnesses who are pressured into choosing someone from the line-up
Help assure that the line-up is a test of recognition and not of recall
Unlikely that the witness will identify suspect through guessing strategies and deductive reasoning.
Known to be innocent

Question 9

What is Foil Bias?

Answer 9

A line-up may be unfair biased or suggestive when one person stands out from the rest
The witness can pick them out irrespective of whether they were present at the scene of the crime

Question 10

Give examples of Foil Bias

Answer 10

Ellison et al (1981) - Black suspect in all white line-up

Uriah Courtney case - Young girl abducted and assaulted, rescued by passer by and described offender. Witnesses picked out Courtney from line-up and was prosecuted based on testimony, sentenced to life. DNA proved innocence

Question 11

What is the structure of a line-up?

Answer 11

1 suspect others are foils

Question 12

How are foils selected?

Answer 12

Match to description - share main features based on witness description
But - people are not good at describing faces and multiple varying descriptions require multiple line-ups

Match to Suspect - Suspect physical appearance analysed and matched
But - subjective judgement

Question 13

What is better MTD or MTS?

Answer 13

MTD better ID performance on TP line-ups and TA line-ups

BUT

Witnesses poor at describing faces (Lindsay et al 1994)
Description needs to be interpreted
Darling et al (2008) using police foils increases ecological validity but no sig diff in performance
Police favour MTS (Valentine et al, 2009)

Question 14

How are line-ups measured for fairness?

Answer 14

Line up size - adequate number of appropriate foils
Nominal size - no. persons presented in line-up
Effective size - no. persons who are effective choice alternatives for a witness who has little information or memory about the actual offender or for a witness viewing a line up which the suspect is actually innocent

Question 15

What types of line-up are there?

Answer 15

Live- costly in time and resources , witnesses unable to attend, suspect/foils play up

Photo - more control, more time for witnesses, less stressful BUT photos are static

Video- currently used, advantage of photo parade but with richness of movements

Question 16

How does the line-up media affect the effectiveness?

Answer 16

Shapiro et al (1986) meta analysis on medium and ID performance - no sig. diff between video and live ID yet photos would lead to poorer performance

Question 17

What is a simultaneous line-up?

Answer 17

The suspect and other line-up members are in view all at the same time - viewing one face with another

Wogalter et al (1993) - most commonly used in US

Question 18

What are the issues with a simultaneous line-up?

Answer 18

Lindsay and Wells (1985) - high false ID especially when real suspect is absent

Pozzulo and Lindsay (1998) - high false ID rate for children and older adults

Question 19

What is a sequential line-up?

Answer 19

Eyewitness views one line-up member at a time

Question 20

What are the benefits of a sequential line-up?

Answer 20

Produces better results with adults than simultaneous line-up

Lindsay et al (1991) - reduce false ID rates from biased line-ups

Question 21

Why does the sequential line-up produce better results?

Answer 21

Lindsay and Wells (1985) - decision strategies

Simultaneous = relative 
Sequential = absolute

Question 22

What were the findings of Kneller et al (2001)?

Answer 22

2 x 2 independent groups design

72 college students

IV - line up (simultaneous or sequential)
- presence of target

DV - ID accuracy, decision time, confidence and self reported questionnaires

Sequential and simultaneous had equal correct IDs but sequential had fewer false IDs

Inaccuracies result of relative judgement strategies

Presentation and decision strategy not mutually exclusive

Question 23

Do sequential line-ups increase accuracy?

Answer 23

Early research said yes but

Carlson and Carlson (2014) - sequential may be less accurate

Statistical analysis developed from chi-square and log linear to ROC analysis

Question 24

What did Valentine, Darling and Memon (2007) find?

Answer 24

Examined strict sequential procedure instead of PACE

IV - PACE sequential vs strict sequential

• still vs moving
• present and absent

TP - 53% correct ID
More correct IDs under PACE than strict

TA - 84% rejected line-up
16% mistakenly identified innocent foil

PACE more useful ID procedure than strict

Question 25

What were the findings of Wilcock and Kneller (2011)?

Answer 25

3x2 - PACE Seq, PACE Seq plus matrix and strict Seq
- TA, TP

Matrix no sig. affect on ID accuracy

Question 26

What are the issues with line-up instructions?

Answer 26

Malpass and Devine (1984) - witness may believe line-up will include actual perpetrator

Cutler et al (1987) - telling a witness the culprit is in the line up = high rates of mistaken ID

Malpass and Devine (1981) Bias instructions = 78% ID innocent person
Unbiased = 33% ID innocent person

Steblay (1997) - biased instructions lead to higher rate of choosing from a TA line-up

Question 27

What are the issues with line-up administration?

Answer 27

A police officer knows which line-up member is the culprit and can inadvertently bias the eyewitness through non-verbal behaviours (Wells, 1993)

Question 28

What were the findings of Haw and Fisher (2004) ?

Answer 28

Showed video event then a photo line-up
Administrations led to believe it was a TP lone-up and which position they were in

High contact condition - sat at table with witness, showing line-up and recording decision
Low contact condition - handed written instructions, line-up photos and recording form and sat out of witnesses view

Results - witnesses chose innocent suspect on TA line-up above chance rate when contact is high
Reduced when sat behind witness