Eyewitness Testimony & Reliability

Eyewitness (EW): Refers to an individual who provides a first-hand account of an event, particularly a crime.

To understand eyewitness testimony and its reliability, one must first understand memory.
- Three Steps of Memory: 1. Encoding 2. Storage 3. Retrieval
1. Encoding: Gathering information about the witnessed event.
2. Storage: Keeping that information in the brain.
3. Retrieval: Accessing the stored information later.

Reliance on eyewitness testimony in legal settings is based on the belief that our memory of events is accurate.
- Misconception: Memories are sometimes erroneously likened to a camera.
- Reality: Memory encoding, storage, and retrieval are prone to errors, influencing recollection of events.

Challenges in Encoding:
- Witnessing an event does not guarantee effective encoding.
- Selective attention: Focusing on certain stimuli while ignoring others (Ungvarsky, 2023).
Factors Impairing Encoding During Crimes:
- Environmental Factors: Poor visibility (e.g., darkness, obstructed views).
- Speed of Incident: Perception of time may differ from actual duration.
- Disguises: Facial obscurity (mask, hoodie) can hinder recognition.
Stress and Encoding:
- High-stress situations impede encoding capabilities (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
- Study by Deffenbacher et al. (2004) indicates stress reduces memory accuracy.
- Presence of a weapon can lead to the weapon focus effect, diverting attention away from the perpetrator's features (Fawcett et al., 2011; Pickel et al., 2006).

Memory Degradation: Memories can degrade over time; memory traces may deteriorate (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
Impact of Expectations (Scripts):
- Expectation scripts affect memory retention; inconsistent information may be easily forgotten (Garciá-Bajos et al., 2012).

Types of Retrieval Errors:
- Cross-Race Effect (Own Race Bias): Tendency to better recognize individuals within one’s own demographic; misidentification risk increases by 1.56 times for individuals outside one’s racial group.
- Unconscious Transference: Familiar faces from different contexts may be misidentified (Buckhout, 1974); prior exposure can influence recall (Deffenbacher et al., 2006).
- Influence of Wording: Leading questions can alter recall significantly (e.g., “did you see the broken headlight?” vs. “did you see a broken headlight?”).
- Retrieval Inhibition: Emphasizing aspects of a scene can hinder recollection of others (e.g., focusing on headlights limits recall of windshield details).

Confidence in identification can be misleading; relationship between initial confidence and accuracy is strongest when conditions are ideal (Wixted et al., 2015).
Later confidence can be influenced; longer delays increase the chances of memory alteration.
Experiment by Wells and Bradfield (1998): Participants who received confirming feedback reported higher confidence after making a wrong identification, illustrating the post-identification feedback effect.
- Cognitive dissonance can compel witnesses to boost their confidence in light of doubt (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
Misidentification has been responsible for 71% of wrongful convictions. Focus on reforming identification methodology is critical.

In 1998, the American Psychology-Law Society (APLS) reviewed 25 years of research and developed recommendations for eyewitness testimony procedures.
A further review in 2020 led to updated recommendations that substantially reduce mistaken identifications (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).

Conduct interviews promptly and avoid leading questions.
Questions should focus on:
- Physical description of the suspect.
- Witness's familiarity with the suspect.
- Witness's attention level during the event.
- Viewing conditions.
Videotape interviews to preserve authenticity and detail.

Ensure legal grounds exist for suspect inclusion in lineups (e.g., matching descriptions, possessing crime-related materials).

Use double-blind procedures to prevent bias; both the officer and the witness should remain unaware of the suspect's identity.

Use individuals who resemble the suspect but are not suspected of the crime in lineups.
Limit one suspect per lineup; avoid rigging lineups to influence witness choices.

Provide bias-reducing instructions to avoid assumptions about suspect presence (including allowing witnesses to say “I don’t know”).

Secure immediate confidence statements post-lineup to mitigate future alterations in confidence levels (Wixted et al., 2016).

Engage expert witnesses to inform courts about the limitations of eyewitness testimony, which can be effectively utilized in trials (Cutler et al., 1990).

Some techniques, like hypnosis, have shown sporadic effectiveness but often lead to legal skepticism regarding their admissibility due to potential false memories (Lynn et al., 2009).
Cognitive interviews are more reliable; they help witnesses relax and navigate through details of the event, enhancing retrieval without suggestibility. This technique necessitates trained personnel for effective implementation.