Chapter 6 notes

Field Studies of Eyewitness Identification

United States v. Mark Gilliam

• Date & Time: March 23, 2006, at around 10:00 p.m.

• Location: Pizza Plus Restaurant, Morristown, Tennessee

• Incident: Armed robbery; the manager was threatened and forced to give over $450.

• Description of Perpetrator: Black sweatpants, black sweatshirt, bandanna covering the face.

• Identification Process:

  • Sketch drawn based on victim's description.

  • Victim shown a photo lineup and eventually identified Mark Gilliam after some modifications to the photos.

  • Eyewitness factors that could affect accuracy include disguise, weapon presence, and stress level during the incident.

Legal Outcome

• Confession: Gilliam confessed to avoid being labeled an armed career criminal, which carries mandatory sentences.

• Confession conditions: Required to admit to the robbery in court despite maintaining innocence.

• Eyewitness testimonies influenced by various factors such as disguise (Cutler & Penrod, 1988) and stress levels (Deffenbacher, 1981).

Generalizability of Laboratory vs. Field Studies

• Research Validity: Laboratory studies often involve undergraduate students unlike real-world scenarios.

• Psychological mechanisms: Memory, attention, and influence are expected to behave similarly across settings despite situational differences.

• Key Areas to Explore:

  • Stress impacts memory, generally leading to poorer eyewitness identification in laboratory settings as well.

  • Child suggestibility raised concerns, showing discrepancies in identification accuracy based on involvement in the crime (Rudy & Goodman, 1991).

Field Study Methodology

• Importance of Conducting Field Research: Provides real-world data, but lacks experimental control unlike lab settings.

• Issues with Eyewitness Identification: Mistaken eyewitness identifications have been a factor in many overturned wrongful convictions.

Summary of Field Studies (Chronological Order)

• Nine major field studies included various crimes and witness scenarios that aim to understand eyewitness identification accuracy.

• Challenges noted include:

  • Lack of detailed police records may impact reliability.

  • Time delays post-crime correlate with reduced identification rates.

Tollestrup, Turtle, and Yuille (1994) Study

• Methodology: Analyzed files from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (1987-1989).

  • 119 robbery and 66 fraud cases reviewed for eyewitness details and identification methods.

• Key Findings:

  • Witnesses provided more physical descriptors than clothing.

  • Identification rates influenced by evidence strength and time delay from crime.

  • Weapon presence significantly affected identification outcomes (30.61% when weapon present vs. 73.33% without).

Wright and McDaid (1996) Study

• Data Collection: Over 1,500 witnesses at police stations in London.

• Identifications Rate: 39.1% picked the suspect from the lineup; 20% picked a foil.

• Significant Factors: Race of the suspect and length of time since the event affect choices made by witnesses.

Behrman and Davey (2001) Study

• Data Analyzed: 271 cases, mostly armed robberies from the Sacramento Police Department (1987-1998).

• Identification rates showed dependence on the strength of evidence available.

• Notable Findings: Identifications within 7 days were significantly higher (64%) compared to longer intervals.

General Patterns in Field Studies

• Retention Interval: Longer delays generally correlate with reduced identification accuracy.

• Cross-Race Identification: Same-race identifications increased accuracy over cross-race identifications.

• Weapon Focus: Limited evidence shows that the presence of a weapon can lower identification accuracy.

• Conditions of Viewing: Longer viewing times improve identification success rates.

Future Research Directions

• Emphasize the need for field studies to inform policy on eyewitness identification practices.

• Address challenges in collecting valid identification data and ensure standardized protocols are followed to minimize noncompliance in police procedures.

Field Studies of Eyewitness Identification

United States v. Mark Gilliam

• Date & Time: March 23, 2006, at around 10:00 p.m.

• Location: Pizza Plus Restaurant, Morristown, Tennessee

• Incident: An armed robbery occurred where the manager was threatened at gunpoint and forced to surrender over $450 in cash. The crime instilled substantial fear among patrons and staff present.

• Description of Perpetrator: The suspect was described to be wearing black sweatpants, a black sweatshirt, and had a bandanna covering the lower half of the face, which severely complicated the identification process.

Identification Process:

• Initial Actions: A forensic sketch was drawn based on the initial victim's description, enhancing the investigative lead.

• Photo Lineup: The victim was later shown a photo lineup modified after initial poor recognitions; this resulted in the identification of Mark Gilliam as the perpetrator. Eyewitness factors that adversely affect accuracy were noted, including the use of disguise, the presence of a weapon during the crime, and elevated stress levels experienced at the time of the incident.

Legal Outcome

• Confession: Gilliam confessed to the robbery charges mainly to evade a label as an armed career criminal, which carries severe and mandatory sentencing if proved in court.

• Conditions of Confession: Although he confessed, Gilliam maintained his innocence regarding the crimes during court proceedings, indicating potential issues with the validity of eyewitness accuracy in the conviction.

• Eyewitness Testimonies: Research shows that testimonies can be heavily influenced by various factors, especially disguise (Cutler & Penrod, 1988) and stress levels (Deffenbacher, 1981), both of which were pertinent in Gilliam's case.

Generalizability of Laboratory vs. Field Studies

• Research Validity: Laboratory studies may not translate well to real-world scenarios as they often involve undergraduate participants in controlled environments, whereas field studies utilize real-life witnesses encountering crimes, providing a more comprehensive understanding of eyewitness dynamics.

• Psychological Mechanisms: Despite the differing settings, memory, attention, and suggestion are expected to exhibit consistent behaviors across both controlled and natural contexts.

Key Areas to Explore

• Stress Impacts on Memory: It is widely recognized that stress often leads to poorer eyewitness identification accuracy, particularly in laboratory settings. The connection between high-stress situations and memory impairment is crucial for understanding eyewitness reliability in court.

• Child Suggestibility: Concerns have been raised regarding suggestibility in child witnesses, indicating that their identification accuracy can vary significantly based on their involvement in the witnessed crime (Rudy & Goodman, 1991).

Field Study Methodology

• Importance of Conducting Field Research: While field studies provide valuable real-world data, they lack the experimental control typically found in laboratory studies, leading to potential variability in results.

• Issues with Eyewitness Identification: Mistaken eyewitness identifications have been implicated in numerous overturned wrongful convictions, representing a significant failure in the justice system and highlighting the need for improvement in identification procedures.

Summary of Field Studies (Chronological Order)

• A comprehensive review of nine major field studies was conducted, examining various crimes and witness scenarios to evaluate eyewitness identification accuracy concerning different variables influencing outcomes.

• Challenges Noted in Studies:

  • Lack of detailed police records can undermine reliability assessments.

  • Time delays between the crime and identification are associated with decreased identification rates.

Tollestrup, Turtle, and Yuille (1994) Study

• Methodology: Analysis of files from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police covering the years 1987-1989. A total of 119 robbery cases and 66 fraud cases were reviewed focusing on eyewitness details and identification methodologies.

• Key Findings:

  • Witnesses tended to provide more detailed physical descriptors than clothing descriptions.

  • Identification rates were significantly impacted by the strength of evidence and the time elapsed since the crime occurred.

  • The presence of a weapon dramatically affected identification outcomes, with only 30.61% successful identifications when a weapon was involved compared to 73.33% accuracy without weapons.

Wright and McDaid (1996) Study

• Data Collection: Over 1,500 witnesses were interviewed at police stations in London for their identifications of suspects.

• Identification Rate: 39.1% of witnesses successfully picked the suspect out of the lineup, while 20% identified a foil, emphasizing potential misidentification issues.

• Significant Factors: The race of the suspect and the length of time since the event were crucial determinants affecting witness choices, underscoring inherent biases in eyewitness identification.

Behrman and Davey (2001) Study

• Data Analyzed: 271 cases, predominantly related to armed robberies from the Sacramento Police Department (1987-1998).

• Identification Rates: Data suggested identification rates depended heavily on the strength of evidence presented during the lineup.

• Notable Findings: Identifications made within seven days of the incident had a significantly higher success rate (64%) compared to those made after longer intervals, drawing attention to the critical nature of timely evidence collection.

General Patterns in Field Studies

• Retention Interval: Longer retention intervals generally lead to a reduction in identification accuracy, emphasizing the need for immediate procedures following incidents.

• Cross-Race Identification: Same-race identifications consistently show higher accuracy rates over cross-race identifications, further illustrating the challenges in reliable recognition.

• Weapon Focus Effects: There is limited evidence suggesting that weapon presence may lower eyewitness identification accuracy, indicating a critical area of focus for future policies and training.

• Viewing Conditions: Increased viewing time correlates with improved identification success rates, stressing the importance of conditions at the time of crime for eyewitness reliability.

Future Research Directions

• Policy Informing: There is a pressing need for field studies that can effectively inform policy on eyewitness identification practices, helping shape standards that enhance accuracy and reliability.

• Addressing Methodological Challenges: Future research must tackle the challenges in collecting valid identification data and strive to maintain standardized protocols to ensure compliance and accuracy in police procedures to minimize wrongful convictions due to misidentification.