chapter 8 notes

Chapter 8: Conclusions and Thoughts

Introduction

• Opening quote from Wilkin and Dill’s “Long Black Veil” reflecting the themes of identity and reliability.

• Focus of this chapter: assessment of courts evaluating the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence.

Eyewitness Identification Evidence

• Objective: Outline the reliability criteria for accurate identification as defined by the Supreme Court in significant cases (Neil v. Biggers, 1972; Manson v. Braithwaite, 1977).

• Aims to determine if these criteria prevent the admission of suggestive or unreliable eyewitness evidence in court.

Historical Context

• Pre-1970s Approach:

  • Based on Stovall v. Deno (1967), the courts employed a per se exclusion policy.

  • Any suggestive identification procedure led to automatic exclusion from trials, regardless of corroborating evidence.

• Shift to Two-Pronged Test:

  • Replaced the per se exclusion with a two-pronged reliability test (Neil v. Biggers, 1972; Manson v. Braithwaite, 1977).

  • First Prong: Evaluates suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Fair procedures conclude the reliability test here.

  • Second Prong: Applied only if suggestiveness is found; assesses accuracy despite any bias.

First Prong: Lineup Suggestiveness or Bias

• Definition of a Biased Lineup:

  • A lineup is biased if witnesses not present at the event choose the suspect more frequently than expected (greater than 1/n).

Factors Leading to Bias

1. Pre-Lineup Instructions:

   • Can predispose witnesses to choose a lineup member.

   • Unbiased Instructions: Remind witnesses the suspect may not be present reduces bias.

2. Lineup Administrator Influence:

   • Can inadvertently signal the suspect's identity.

   • Double-Blind Lineups: Reduces false identifications by preventing any cues from the administrator.

3. Lineup Composition:

   • Foils in the lineup can unfairly sway identification.

   • Using match-to-description strategy can enhance fairness.

Second Prong: Five Factors for Evaluating Reliability

• Supreme Court Criteria for Jurors:

  1. Opportunity to view the perpetrator.

  2. Attention paid during the crime.

  3. Quality and accuracy of description.

  4. Time elapsed before identification.

  5. Certainty of the identification.

• Importance: Jurors need to consider if these factors relate strongly to identification accuracy, which in some cases they do not.

Weak Correlation with Memory Performance

• Many factors (like post-identification feedback) influence perceived reliability, skewing jurors' perceptions.

Importance of Feedback on Certainty

• Post-Identification Feedback:

  • Confirmation increases self-rated attention, certainty, and accuracy, even in culprit-absent scenarios.

  • Jurors may mistakenly interpret heightened confidence as reliability.

Description Accuracy

• Strength of eyewitness descriptions correlates poorly with actual identification accuracy.

• More detailed and accurate descriptions do not guarantee reliable identifications and can be misleading.

Confidence-Accuracy Relationship

• High confidence does not always translate to accurate identifications.

• Factors apart from memory influence confidence reports, weakening correlational strength.

Conclusion

• Supreme Court's reliability factors can mislead jurors due to weak correlations with actual identification accuracy.

• Recommendations for improvements:

  • Organizations like the Innocence Project should aim to raise public awareness and exonerate wrongful convictions.

  • Continued psycho-legal research should focus on external validity and influence policy changes.

Chapter 8: Conclusions and Thoughts

Introduction

• Opening quote from Wilkin and Dill’s “Long Black Veil” reflects critical themes of identity, reliability, and the narratives that define individual experiences.

• The focus of this chapter centers on an in-depth assessment of how courts evaluate the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence, a crucial component in modern legal proceedings.

Eyewitness Identification Evidence

• Objective: This section outlines the reliability criteria for accurate eyewitness identification as established by landmark Supreme Court cases, specifically Neil v. Biggers (1972) and Manson v. Braithwaite (1977).

• The chapter aims to determine whether these established criteria effectively prevent the admission of suggestive or unreliable eyewitness evidence in legal contexts.

Historical Context

• Pre-1970s Approach:

  • Prior to the 1970s, courts generally employed a per se exclusion policy for eyewitness identification evidence. This policy meant that any identification procedure deemed suggestive would automatically lead to the exclusion of that evidence from trials, without consideration for any corroborating evidence that may exist. This strict stance was largely influenced by the case of Stovall v. Deno (1967).

• Shift to Two-Pronged Test:

  • The introduction of a two-pronged reliability test, stemming from Neil v. Biggers and Manson v. Braithwaite, marked a significant evolution in how courts handle eyewitness testimony.

  • First Prong: This prong evaluates the suggestiveness of the identification procedure itself. If the procedure is found to be fair, the reliability test concludes here, indicating that the identification can potentially be admitted as evidence.

  • Second Prong: This prong is only applied if suggestiveness is identified. It further examines the accuracy of the identification regardless of any biases present during the identification process.

First Prong: Lineup Suggestiveness or Bias

• Definition of a Biased Lineup: A lineup is considered biased if individuals who did not witness the event choose the suspect more frequently than statistically expected (greater than 1/n, where n is the number of lineup members).

Factors Leading to Bias

• Pre-Lineup Instructions: Instructions given to witnesses prior to a lineup can significantly predispose them to choose a specific member, impacting the objectivity of their selections. For instance, unbiased instructions that highlight the possibility of the suspect not being present reduce inherent bias.

• Lineup Administrator Influence: Administrators can inadvertently convey cues that signal the identity of the suspect, thereby affecting the witness's decision.

  • Double-Blind Lineups: Implementing double-blind procedures, where neither the witness nor the administrator knows who the suspect is, has been shown to reduce false identifications and increase the integrity of the identification process.

• Lineup Composition: The composition of the lineup is crucial in ensuring fairness. For instance, employing a match-to-description strategy—whereby foils resemble the description of the perpetrator given by the witness—can greatly enhance the fairness of the selection process.

Second Prong: Five Factors for Evaluating Reliability

• Supreme Court Criteria for Jurors: Jurors must consider several factors in determining eyewitness reliability, including:

  1. Opportunity to view the perpetrator: How well was the witness able to see the criminal during the commission of the crime?

  2. Attention paid during the crime: Was the witness’s attention fully engaged at the moment of the crime, or were they distracted?

  3. Quality and accuracy of the description: How detailed and accurate was the description provided by the eyewitness?

  4. Time elapsed before identification: How much time passed between the commission of the crime and the identification process?

  5. Certainty of the identification: How confident does the witness feel about their identification of the suspect?

• Importance: It is crucial for jurors to consider whether these factors correlate strongly with actual identification accuracy. Past findings suggest that they often do not, calling into question the reliability of eyewitness testimony in many cases.

Weak Correlation with Memory Performance

• Numerous external factors, including post-identification feedback and the influence of media exposure, can alter a witness's perception of reliability, obscuring jurors’ understanding of factual accuracy.

Importance of Feedback on Certainty

• Post-Identification Feedback: Studies demonstrate that post-identification feedback can inflate a witness’s self-assuredness regarding their memory, leading them to inaccurately gauge their own attention and accuracy, even when the actual culprit was not present.

• Jurors may misinterpret this augmented confidence as a sign of reliability, further complicating the evaluation of eyewitness evidence.

Description Accuracy

• The strength of an eyewitness's description does not correlate well with actual identification accuracy. More detailed or accurate descriptions do not guarantee reliable identifications and can often be misleading, as memory is fallible and subject to distortion over time.

Confidence-Accuracy Relationship

• High confidence levels in a witness do not necessarily correlate with accurate identifications. Various external factors can influence a witness's confidence reports, leading to a weakening of the relationship between confidence and actual memory performance.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court's established reliability factors may mislead jurors, as they often exhibit weak correlations with the actual accuracy of eyewitness identifications. This misalignment highlights the need for legal reforms regarding eyewitness testimony.

• Recommendations for Improvement:

  • Organizations such as the Innocence Project should focus on elevating public awareness around the fallibility of eyewitness testimony to help exonerate individuals wrongfully convicted based on flawed identifications.

  • Ongoing psycho-legal research should emphasize exploring external validity across various contexts and populations, ultimately influencing policy changes to better safeguard against wrongful convictions in the justice system.