For example, many respondents believed that a cross-racial identification identifying a stranger of a different race would be just as reliable as or even more reliable than a same-race identification. A more recent survey, this time with approximately 1, respondents from across the U. Despite their lack of knowledge about eyewitness memory, these poorly informed jurors are holding the fate of defendants in their hands.
Now comes the New Jersey Supreme Court in Henderson and a companion case to show a sophisticated appreciation of this problem, and to propose a bold new solution. The case changes the legal standard for assessing eyewitness evidence to produce one that will more successfully deter inappropriate conduct and will help jurors better evaluate eyewitness evidence.
After Henderson, defendants who can show some evidence of suggestiveness will be entitled to a hearing in which all factors that might have tainted the eyewitness evidence will be explored. The judge also will present to the jury more specific guidance on how to evaluate eyewitness evidence. Had these new standards been in place in , Larry R. New Jersey has been at the forefront of reforms for dealing with eyewitness evidence and for its appreciation of the tragedy of wrongful convictions.
With this latest case, it has shown innovative and bold leadership. Overview Fingerprint. Abstract Examines the arguments in favor of experimental psychologists testifying as expert witnesses in cases involving eyewitnesses to inform the jury about problems with eyewitness testimony.
Keywords role of experimental psychologists as expert witnesses in court cases involving eyewitness identification. Access to Document Link to publication in Scopus. Link to the citations in Scopus. Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? Together they form a unique fingerprint. View full fingerprint. Marcel Mesulam, professor of neurology and psychiatry at Northwestern University observes that "your brain may be re-creating something very vivid.
But that doesn't prove that what was being re-created was true. This neural recollection process takes on particular significance when eyewitnesses to crimes are asked to recall their experience for police investigators, lawyers, or a judge and jury. Most witnesses want to help.
Both investigators and witnesses want to see justice served. No one wants to held responsible for the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. In short, most witnesses and criminal investigators have the same goals. In most cases, these common goals can create an effective collaboration to identify a suspect. But these same goals, combined with the fallibility of memory, can create an margin for error in the identification of a suspect.
Psychologist G. Wells, an expert in methods used to secure eyewitness testimony, describes the process this way: "The investigator's knowledge of which person Elizabeth Lofthus explains the development of false certainty by claiming that "the more people think about an event from the past, the more confident they become in their memories.
The problem is that they get more confident in their inaccurate memories as well as their accurate ones. Regardless of the possibility for error, eyewitness testimony can be extremely helpful in determining innocence or guilt in criminal cases.
Despite assertions that traumatic events can destroy memory, psychologists Ofshe and Watters from the University of California point to a study done of children who witnessed the murder of a parent. Wells, suggests that "[a]lthough Wells quotes the U. Supreme Court, who, in the case of Nell v. Biggers, ruled that not all testimony is created equally valid or invalid.
In contemporary justice settings, most instructions to the jury include a warning that eyewitness testimony can be subject to error. Wells goes on to suggest several methods that police and prosecutors, judges, and lawyers can use to "greatly reduce the justice system's role in contributing to false identifications. They include:. That's our suspect.
Instead of viewing a limited number of faces chosen by criminal investigators, the eyewitness chooses his or her own "rogue's gallery" of suspects from a computerized photo collection. The eyewitness is not forced to choose a single suspect.
Instead, the court is notified as to how many faces were viewed by the eyewitness, whether the suspect appeared among the witness's choices, and how many faces were chosen the fewer the faces, the stronger the evidence. This technique avoids an "all or nothing" attitude on the part of both investigators and eyewitnesses.
Police lineups and other methods of suspect identification are an essential tool of justice. Most inaccuracies in eyewitness testimony are unintentional and many are detected in the courtroom, but the consequences of mistaken identity can be disastrous for the accused. Our justice system is not, and cannot be, perfect.
But there is always room for improvement.
0コメント