Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preventing Mistaken Convictions in Eyewitness Identification Trials

The Case against Traditional Safeguards

  • Chapter
Psychology and Law

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Law & Psychology ((PILP,volume 10))

Abstract

It is clear that eyewitness testimony and eyewitness identifications play important roles in the apprehension, prosecution, and adjudication of criminal offenders. Police rely on eyewitness statements in their initial investigations; eyewitness identifications from lineups and photospreads are common; and the eyewitness is probably the most common type of witness in criminal trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. E (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 669–679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, G. L., Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors’ evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors of criminal justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, J. C, & Bothwell, R. K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, J. C, Maass, A., Snyder, L. D., & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 673–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, J. C, & Wolfskeil, M. P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 7, 215–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Moran, G., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identifications: The eyewitness, psychology, and law. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock-juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J., & Frank, B. (1957). Not guilty. London: Gallancz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S. M., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). The myths and realities of attorney jury selection folklore and scientific jury selection: What works? Ohio Northern University Law Review, XVII, 229–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosch, H. M., Beck, E. L., & Mclntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, C. R. (1987). Wrongful conviction: Societal tolerance of injustice. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 4, 99–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1986). Guilty until proven innocent. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 518–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. (1979). How adequate is human intuition for judging eyewitness testimony? In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 256–272). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Krafka, C, & Penrod, S. D. (1985). Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 58–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leippe, M. R., Wells, G. L., & Ostrom, T. M. (1978). Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 345–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L., & Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 447–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O’Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 333–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maass, A., Brigham, J. C, & West, S. G. (1985). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 207–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConkey, K. M., & Roche, S. M. (1989). Knowledge of eyewitness memory. Australian Psychologist, 24, 377–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., & Comfort, J. C. (1986). Neither “tentative” or “fragmentary”: Verdict preference of impaneled felony jurors as a function of attitude toward capital punishment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 146–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Jury selection in major controlled substance trials: The need for extended voir dire. Forensic Reports, 3, 331–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1994). Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 274–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noon, E., & Hollin, C. R. (1987). Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: A British survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S. D, & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Assessing the need for and impact of eyewitness expert testimony on jury decision making. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 1001–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1992). Eyewitnesses, experts, and jurors: Improving the quality of jury decision making in eyewitness cases. In J. Misumi, B. Wilpert, & H. Motoaki (Eds.), Organizational and work psychology (pp. 539–561). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Law & Public Policy, 5, 817–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S. D., Fulero, S., & Cutler, B. (1995). Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 229–260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pigott, M. A., Brigham, J. C, & Bothwell, R. K. (1990). A field study of the relationship between quality of eyewitnesses’ descriptions and identification accuracy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17, 84–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platz, S. J., & Hosch, H. M. (1988). Cross racial/ethnic eyewitness identification: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 972–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, T., & Luginbuhl, J. (1987, August). Jurors’ death penalty support and conviction prone-ness. Paper presented at the 95th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahaim, G. L., & Brodsky, S. L. (1982). Empirical evidence versus common sense: Juror and lawyer knowledge of eyewitness accuracy. Law and Psychology Review, 7, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, D. F., Read, J. D., & Toglia, M. P. (Eds.). (1994). Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L., Malpass, R. S., & Koehnken, G. (Eds.). (1996). Psychological issues in eyewitness identification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S. D., Read, J. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Gaining confidence in confidence: A new meta-analysis on the confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stovall v. Dermo, 388 U.S. 293 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1984). How adequate is human intuition forjudging eyewitness testimony. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 256–272). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., & Leippe, M. R. (1981). How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Using memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 682–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Tousignant, J. P. (1980). Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wier, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock-jurors’ verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 901–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrightsman, L. S., Nietzel, M. T., & Fortune, W. H. (1993). Psychology and the legal system (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law-Psychology Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68588-0308, USA

    Steven D. Penrod

  2. College of Arts and Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, 33199, USA

    Brian Cutler

Authors
  1. Steven D. Penrod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Cutler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and the Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada

    Ronald Roesch , Stephen D. Hart  & James R. P. Ogloff ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Penrod, S.D., Cutler, B. (1999). Preventing Mistaken Convictions in Eyewitness Identification Trials. In: Roesch, R., Hart, S.D., Ogloff, J.R.P. (eds) Psychology and Law. Perspectives in Law & Psychology, vol 10. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4891-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4891-1_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-306-45950-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-4891-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation