scholarly journals The Intractability of Inaccurate Eyewitness Identification

Daedalus ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 147 (4) ◽  
pp. 90-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jed S. Rakoff ◽  
Elizabeth F. Loftus
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Eyewitness Testimony ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Jury Instructions ◽  
Eyewitness Identifications ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Made In

Inaccurate eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. As early as 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized this danger, but the tests it promulgated to distinguish reliable from unreliable eyewitness testimony were based largely on surmise. More recently, substantial research has demonstrated that, while significant improvements can be made in the manner in which lineups, photo arrays, and other identification procedures are conducted, inherent limitations of human perception, memory, and psychology raise, in many cases, intractable barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony. Where barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony exist, one response is to sensitize jurors to the limitations of eyewitness identifications, but studies to date have not shown that special jury instructions can accomplish that purpose. Moreover, research on expert testimony has produced mixed results, with some studies showing that it helps jurors discriminate between good and bad eyewitness evidence, and other studies showing that it merely creates overall skepticism.

Expert Psychological Testimony in the United States: A New Playing Field? 1This paper is based in part on material presented at greater length in , and .

1995 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven D. Penrod ◽  
Solomon M. Fulero ◽  
Brian L. Cutler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eyewitness Testimony ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Psychological Testimony

This paper examines the legal and scientific aspects of expert psychological testimony in the United States and discusses the possible implications for such testimony of a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court. We consider expert testimony on eyewitness identification issues as an illustration of the reaction of the courts to, particularly, novel scientific evidence offered in adversarial settings. First, an historical perspective on the use of expert testimony is traced with particular attention to the criteria that state and federal courts have used in determining whether to admit expert testimony. We then examine the new Supreme Court decision and discuss its implications for the use of expert eyewitness testimony. We conclude by illustrating how eyewitness research and research on jury decisionmaking is likely to assume new importance in light of new expert evidence criteria.

scholarly journals Why eyewitnesses fail

2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (30) ◽  
pp. 7758-7764 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas D. Albright
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Eyewitness Testimony ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Eyewitness Identifications ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Consensus Report ◽  
Comprehensive Study

Eyewitness identifications play an important role in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, but it is well known that eyewitnesses make mistakes, often with serious consequences. In light of these concerns, the National Academy of Sciences recently convened a panel of experts to undertake a comprehensive study of current practice and use of eyewitness testimony, with an eye toward understanding why identification errors occur and what can be done to prevent them. The work of this committee led to key findings and recommendations for reform, detailed in a consensus report entitledIdentifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification. In this review, I focus on the scientific issues that emerged from this study, along with brief discussions of how these issues led to specific recommendations for additional research, best practices for law enforcement, and use of eyewitness evidence by the courts.

scholarly journals JUDICIAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE: A TALE OF TWO CASES

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Lirieka Meintjes
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Human Memory ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Eyewitness Identifications

One of the most significant consequences of the use of post-conviction DNA testing in the criminal justice system has been the growing recognition that eyewitness identification testimony is simply not as reliable as it was previously considered to be. In approximately 75% of DNA exonerations in the United States, mistaken eyewitness identifications were the principal cause of wrongful convictions. Notwithstanding scientific advances regarding human memory and other factors that could influence identifications by eyewitnesses, courts have not shown eagerness in utilising such scientific knowledge in reaching legal decisions. Two cases have been chosen for discussion in this article. In S v Henderson 27 A 3d 872 (NJ 2011) the New Jersey Supreme Court was the first in State and Federal jurisdictions in the US that adopted a science-based approach to the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. The other case under discussion is S v Mdlongwa 2010 2 SACR 419 (SCA),a South African Supreme Court of Appeal judgment, where the identification of the perpetrator was based on an eyewitness account and the evidence of an expert on CCTV images. In part one of this article the research findings with regard to estimator variables that were acknowledged in S v Henderson are discussed. Part two specifically scrutinizes S v Mdlongwa to determine the extent to which psychological eyewitness research findings are recognised in South Africa as having an influence on the reliability of eyewitness evidence. In Henderson the court recognised that the legal standards governing the admissibility and use of identification evidence lagged far behind the findings of numerous studies in the social sciences. The new wave introduced by S v Henderson has not gone unnoticed in other State courts in the USA. In Massachusetts, for example, the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court convened a study group on Eyewitness Evidence and the resulting report inter alia recommended judicial notice of modern psychological principles, revised jury eyewitness identification instructions and continuous education of both judges and lawyers. Recognition and education pertaining to these factors can and should be incorporated in South Africa.

Social Psychology and the Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pam Mueller ◽  
Janice Nadler
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Narrow Range ◽  
Eyewitness Testimony ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Related Field ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Jury Decision

Research in psychological science, specifically social psychology, has challenged many of the law's assumptions about human behaviour. Traditionally, these challenges have focused on a fairly narrow range of legal processes involving courtroom evidence and decision making. Thus, social psychologists have examined problems and processes such as pre-trial publicity, interrogations and confessions, juror and jury decision making, and the like. In the related field of cognitive psychology, important contributions from research in memory regarding eyewitness testimony and eyewitness identification have led to greater scrutiny and occasionally expert testimony at trials. This article discusses findings from some of the traditional intersections of law and social psychology, many of which focus on courtroom processes and procedures. It also explores the ways in which more recent findings in social psychology inform debates about legal issues such as punishment, discrimination, morality, mens rea, and remorse, as well of out-of-court processes such as negotiation and dispute resolution.

The DeBoer v. Snyder Trial, 2014

2021 ◽  
pp. 171-190
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Department Chair ◽  
Professional Organization ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 13 tells the story of the DeBoer v. Snyder trial, the expert testimony on both sides, and how the witnesses called to defend Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban were found to be entirely lacking in credibility. Defense witness Douglas Allen presented graphs that he admitted were not even intended to be accurate. Defense witness Mark Regnerus’ testimony was disavowed by his department chair and criticized by his professional organization. The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses described the scholarly consensus about the health of children raised by same-sex couples. This scholarly consensus was accepted by Judge Friedman. The DeBoer trial resulted in a victory for plaintiffs DeBoer and Rowse and their children, but the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision on constitutional grounds, necessitating a showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Explaining the Tension between the Supreme Court's Embrace of Validity as the Touchstone of Admissibility of Expert Testimony and Lower Courts' (Seeming) Rejection of Same

Episteme ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Saks
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Social Epistemology ◽  
Forensic Sciences ◽  
Broad Area ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACTBy lopsided majorities, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of cases, persistently commanded the lower courts to condition the admission of proffered expert testimony on the demonstrated validity of the proponents’ claims of expertise. In at least one broad area–the so-called forensic sciences–the courts below have largely evaded the Supreme Court's holdings. This paper aims to try to explain this massive defiance by the lower courts in terms of social epistemology.

Under the Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-77
Author(s):  
Julie Underwood
Keyword(s):  
Public School ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
School Shootings ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Reasonable Expectation ◽  
Fast Pace ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy ◽  
Made In

School personnel must often balance a student’s right to privacy with a school’s interest in protecting all students. A recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court — Ohio vs. Polk (2017) — brings to light the complexity of these competing concerns and the high-stakes decisions that must be made in the fast pace of a public school. Does a student have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he leaves a backpack behind? Is the school behaving appropriately when personnel open an unattended backpack? In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court gave the benefit of the doubt to the school in concluding that the more thorough search of the first bag was reasonable. In doing so, they focused on the threat of violence in the schools and the incidents of school shootings in the U.S., stating that schools have a “compelling interest [to ensure] that unattended book bags do not contain dangerous items.” The author concludes that it seems reasonable to expect that bags that are left unattended will be opened not just to identify the owner but to determine if they represent a threat to the general safety. Extending that rationale to the schools which may experience many unattended bags throughout the day seems reasonable.

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Business Financing ◽  
The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document