Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 1–24 | Cite as

Suggestive Eyewitness Identification Procedures and the Supreme Court’s Reliability Test in Light of Eyewitness Science: 30 Years Later

Original Article

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling concerning suggestive eyewitness identification procedures (Manson v. Braithwaite, 1977, 432 U.S. 98) has not been revisited by the Court in the intervening 30+ years. Meanwhile, scientific studies of eyewitnesses have progressed and DNA exonerations show that mistaken identification is the primary cause of convictions of the innocent. We analyzed the two-inquiry logic in Manson in light of eyewitness science. Several problems are discussed. Ironically, we note that suggestive identification procedures (determined in the first inquiry) boost the eyewitnesses’ standing on three of the five criteria (used in the second inquiry) that are used to decide whether the suggestive procedures were a problem. The net effect undermines safeguards intended by the Court and destroys incentives to avoid suggestive procedures.

Keywords

Eyewitness Lineups Suggestive identification procedures Expert eyewitness testimony 

References

  1. Bartlett, J. C., & Memon, A. (2006). Eyewitness memory of young and older eyewitnesses. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (pp. 309–338). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475–491.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behrman, B. W., & Richards, R. E. (2005). Suspect/foil identification in actual crimes and in the laboratory: A reality monitoring analysis Law and Human Behavior, 29, 279–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bower, G. H., & Karlin, M. B. (1974). Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 751–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradfield, A. L., & Wells, G. L. (2000). The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 581–594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L, & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brigham, J. C., & Cairns, D. L. (1988). The effect of mugshot inspections on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1394–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brodes v. State. (2005). 614 S.E.2d 766, Georgia.Google Scholar
  9. Caputo, D., & Dunning, D. (2006). Distinguishing accurate identifications from erroneous ones: Post-dictive indicators of eyewitness accuracy. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (pp. 427–451). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 395–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, S. E., & Tunnicliff, J. L. (2001). Selecting lineup foils in eyewitness identification: Experimental control and real-world simulation. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 199–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Commonwealth v. Johnson. (1995). 650 N.E. 2d, 1257, Mass.Google Scholar
  13. Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwan, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Alexandria, VA: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  14. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixon, S., & Memon, A. (2005). The effect of post-identification feedback on the recall of crime and culprit details. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 935–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. M. (2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses awareness of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 991–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Douglass, A. B., & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doyle, J. M. (2005). True witness: Cops, courts, science, and the battle against misidentification. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Dunning, D., & Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10–12 s rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 951–962.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunning, D., & Stern, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 818–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ebbinghaus, H. E. (1885). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Dover, 1964.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilbert vs. California. (1967). 388 U.S. 263.Google Scholar
  26. Gorenstein, G. W., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1980). Effect of choosing an incorrect photograph on a later identification by an eyewitness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 616–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hafstad, G. S., Memon, A., & Logie, R. (2004). Post-identification feedback, confidence and recollections of witnessing conditions in child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 901–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harley, E. M., Carlsen, K. A., & Loftus, G. R. (2004). The “saw-it-all-along” effect: Demonstrations of visual hindsight bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 960–968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106–1112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hinz, T., & Pezdek, K. (2001). The effect of exposure to multiple lineups on face identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 185–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Junkin, T. (2004). Bloodsworth: The true story of the first death row inmate exonerated by DNA. Chapel Hill: Algonquin.Google Scholar
  32. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Malpass, R. S. (1999). Measuring lineup fairness [Special issue]. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S1–S7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship between lineup fairness and identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Loftus, E. F., & Doyle, J. M. (1997). Eyewitness testimony: Civil and criminal. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis law Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Loftus, E. F., & Greene, E. (1980). Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus”. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loftus, G. R., & Harley, E. M. (2005). Why is it easier to identify someone close than far away? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 43–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Malpass, R. S. (1981). Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manson v. Braithwaite. (1977). 432 U.S. 98.Google Scholar
  44. Mecklenburg, S. (2006). Addendum to the report to the legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois pilot program on sequential double-blind identification procedures. Retrieved February 20, 2008 from http://www.chicagopolice.org/Addendum%20to%20IP-Report.pdf.
  45. Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A, Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. M. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 27, 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Neil v. Biggers. (1972). 409 U.S. 188.Google Scholar
  47. Neuschatz, J. S., Preston, E. L., Burkett, A. D., Toglia, M. R., Lampinen, J. M., Neuschatz, J. S., Fairless, A. H., Lawson, D. S., Powers, R. A., & Goodsell, C. A. (2005). The effects of post-identification feedback and age on retrospective eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 435–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Patterson, K. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1977). When face recognition fails. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 406–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Penrod, S. (2005). Eyewitness identification evidence: How well are witnesses and police performing? Criminal Justice Magazine, 54, 36–47.Google Scholar
  51. People v. Adams. (1981). 423 N.E. 2d, 379 (NY).Google Scholar
  52. Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pigott, M. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1985). Relationship between accuracy of prior description and facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 547–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pozzulo, J. (2006). Person description and identification by child eyewitnesses. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (pp. 283–308). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. American Psychologist, 57, 838–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Russano, M. B., Dickinson, J. J., Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2006). “Why don’t you take another look at number three?” Investigator knowledge and its effects on eyewitness confidence and identification decisions. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 4, 355–379.Google Scholar
  58. Sarason, I. G., & Stroops, R. (1978). Test anxiety and the passage of time. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 102–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  60. Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2006). Post-identification feedback effects on face recognition confidence: Evidence for metacognitive influences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 895–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2007). Assessing the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence: The influence of metacognitive factors. Paper presented at the 3rd International Congress of Psychology and Law, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
  62. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 334–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Seelau, S. M., & Wells, G. L. (1995). Applied eyewitness research: The other mission. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shiffman, H. R., & Bobko, D. J. (1975). Effects of stimulus complexity on the perception of brief temporal intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 156–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simmons v. United States. (1968). 390 U.S. 385, 88 S. Ct. 967, 971.Google Scholar
  67. Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Co-witness feedback in lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 489–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Slater, A. (1994). Identification parades: A scientific evaluation. Police Research Award Scheme. London: Police Research Group, Home Office.Google Scholar
  69. Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pryke, S. (2000). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identification be diagnosed? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 542–550.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sporer, S., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. State v. Dubose. (2005). 699 N.W.2d 582, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  73. State v. Hunt. (2003). 69 P.3d 571, Kansas.Google Scholar
  74. State v. Johnson. (2005). 836 N.E. 2d., Ohio.Google Scholar
  75. State v. Ledbetter. (1981). 441, A.2d 595, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  76. State v. Ledbetter. (2005). 881 A.2d 290, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  77. State v. Ramirez. (1991). 817 P.2d 774, 780–81, Utah.Google Scholar
  78. Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Steblay, N. M., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 523–540.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stern, L. B., & Dunning, D. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications: A reality monitoring approach. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 273–299). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Stovall v. Denno. (1967). 388 U.S. 293.Google Scholar
  83. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  84. U.S. vs. Ash. (1973). 413 U.S. 300.Google Scholar
  85. U.S. vs. Telfaire. (1979). 469 F.2d 552.Google Scholar
  86. U.S. vs. Wade. (1967). 388 U.S. 218.Google Scholar
  87. U.S. v. Wong. (1994). 40 F.3d.Google Scholar
  88. Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weber, N., Brewer, N., Wells, G. L., Semmler, C., & Keast, A. (2004). Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency: The unruly 10–12 s rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 139–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  91. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wells, G. L. (1985). Verbal descriptions of faces from memory: Are they diagnostic of identification accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 619–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto: Carswell Legal Publications.Google Scholar
  95. Wells, G. L. (2006). Eyewitness identification: Systemic reforms. Wisconsin Law Review, 2006, 615–643.Google Scholar
  96. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitnesses’ recollections: Can the postidentification feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10, 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implication for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wells, G. L., & Hryciw, B. (1984). Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations. Memory and Cognition, 12, 338–344.Google Scholar
  100. Wells, G. L., & Leippe, M. R. (1981). How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 682–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wells, G. L., Leippe, M. R., & Ostrom, T. M. (1979). Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1983). What can psychology say about the Neil vs. Biggers criteria for judging eyewitness identification accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wells, G. L., Olson, E., & Charman, S. (2003). Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 42–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). On the selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Whitley, B. E. Jr., & Greenberg, M. S. (1986). The role of eyewitness confidence in juror perceptions of credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Post-identification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations