1

The trouble witheyewitness testimony

April 1, 2008Dana Roark, Ph.D.

Begin with a demo….

Look carefully at the following faces andtry to remember them as best you can….

End ….test later!

2

Again, DNA frees a convict12:02 AM CST on Tuesday, October 31, 2006

By ROBERT THARP / The Dallas Morning News

DNA testing is unlocking prison doors foranother wrongfully convicted Dallas manon Tuesday, bringing to 10 the number offelony exonerations in the county aftersuch tests in the last five years.

After maintaining his innocence for more than25 years, Larry Fuller, 58, is expected to bereleased from custody without any oppositionfrom prosecutors after an afternoon hearing.He was convicted of aggravated rape in 1981and sentenced to 50 years in prison based ona sexual assault victim's identification of him.

The woman initially told police that shecould not provide a detailed descriptionof the man beyond a vague idea of hisskin tone, race and height. The attackoccurred about an hour before sunrise,and the only light in the room came froma window and the dial from a small clockradio.

About a week after the attack, adetective showed the woman photos ofsix men, including an image of Mr.Fuller.

The woman told police that Mr. Fuller'sphoto "looks a lot like the guy," but shewas not positive.

A detective returned a few days later withanother photo lineup that included amore recent photo of Mr. Fuller with abeard. The woman identified Mr. Fuller'simage but said she did not think herattacker had facial hair.

During Mr. Fuller's trial, the victimtestified that she was certain he wasthe man who raped her.

Jurors deliberated 35 minutes beforereturning a guilty verdict.

Mistaken eyewitness identifications account for up to80% of all wrongful convictions (Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer,2001)

Juries find eyewitness testimony verycompelling…especially when it is offered witha high level of confidence.

“There is almost nothing more convincing than a livehuman being who takes the stand, points a finger atthe defendant, and says “That’s the one!”---ElizabethLoftus, 1979

Research has shown no correlation betweenaccuracy and confidence of eyewitnesses(Smith, Kassin, & Ellsworth 1989)

The perils of line-ups (Busey & Loftus, 2007)

Culprit presented along with 5 fillers who fitthe description… Live or photographs

Challenge is to administer an identificationprocedure that is unbiased An innocent suspect has no greater chance of

being identified than do the fillers

3

4 main ways line-ups can be biased(Busey & Loftus, 2007)

Physical bias: fillers don’t fit the witnessdescription For example….”White male with gap between teeth”

If fillers don’t fit, then then functional size of line-up isreduced

Physical bias: oddball Suspects picture is physically different from the fillers’

Larger, smaller, different background, different clothing,etc.

Oddball bias

•Real example of line-up used in Tacoma, WA•Suspect chosen by participants 26% of the time (chance= 17%)•Oddball effect is problematic even if it is very subtle

4 main ways line-ups can be biased(cont.)(Busey & Loftus, 2007)

Lack of double blind proceduresPolice officer conducting the line-up shouldn’t

know the who the suspect is Rarely done in practice Officer may inadvertently lead the witness…. “Is

there anyone else you think it might be?”

Unconscious transferenceWitness has viewed the suspect at some time

other than at the crime live in the same neighborhood

Familiarity may bias identification

Social pressure

Eyewitnesses make errors if they have beenpressured to provide a specific answer (Roebers &Schneider, 2000) “Exactly when did you first see the suspect?” Pressure to come up with a memory

More accurate testimony if (Roediger & McDermott,

2000): people are allowed to report in their own words given sufficient time allowed to say, “I don’t know.”

Eyewitness compliance ---eagerness toplease (Ost et al., 2002)

“Did you see the television fragments of 1997 fatal crashDianna, Princess of Whales?”

44% said yes, although no footage of this event exists!

The effect of positive feedback

Errors are more likely if suspects have beengiven positive feedback (Wells & Bradfield, 1998)

“Is it number 3?” “Good, you identified the suspect.” Even a simple “okay” can be enough to make

participants report during trial that they are “verysure” A little corroboration is a powerful thing Even if during the line-up they took 30 minutes to make a

decision

Witnesses talking to one another right after theincident

Psychological evidence

The “I-never-forget-a-face” idea

Only partly true

Familiar faces vs. unfamiliar faces

People are very good at recognizing faces theyknow well…

4

People are very poor at recognizing facesthey’ve seen only briefly or met only recentlynew classmatesbank teller, etc.

Why? the same face can look very different under

different viewing conditions lighting changesdifferent expressiondifferent viewpoints, etc.

Here comes your face recognition test…

OLD or NEW?OLD

5

OLD or NEW? NEW

OLD or NEW?NEW

OLD or NEW?OLD

6

CONCLUSION

•Face recognition can be quite difficult if thelearning and test images are very different, image-wise….

•Unfamiliar face recognition is a much different kindof task than recognizing people you know well

•such as an old friend or family relative……

10 very different images of (ex) P.M. Tony Blair

20 very different images of Paul McCartney

Demonstration 2…

The suspectDo you think you couldrecognize this personfrom a line-up?

What factors would makeit easier or harder?

7

The lineup

Other perceptual factors

viewing time lighting conditions degree of focused attention cross-racial effects distance of the viewer (example)

A 1997 murder case in Alaska involving the murder of ateenage boy, resulted in the trial of 2 suspects.

The centerpiece of the prosecution’s case was the testimonyof Arlo Olson, who, while drunk, had seen the perpetrators atnight and from a distance of 450 ft.

The defense lawyers called upon Geoffrey Loftusas an expert witness to educate the jury about:

1. perceptual problems of memorizing suspects

2. why Mr. Olson would have chosen the suspects from the line-ups

3. how it was possible to have a clear, confident memory that was false

resizing the image

{

Equivalent representations of a face viewed from different distances

blurringthe image

Simulated distance ofa face viewed from450 feet away

8

Lessons from eyewitness suggestibility

Memories are malleable A synthesis, not a video tape

Memories can change based on what we read,see, and are told

Source confusions are common Being told about something vs. remembering something

Psychological science has yet to determine areliable method for telling whether a memory istrue or false

Flashbulb memories

Extremely vivid, long lasting memories forunexpected, emotionally laden andconsequential events

9-11OJ Simpson verdictKennedy assassination

Are these memories more accurate thaneveryday memories?

Actual: NOPerceived accuracy: YES

Flashbulb memories

9/11 research (Talarico & Rubin, 2003)

Interviewed participants Sept 12

Also asked about an “everyday memory”

When did you first hear the news?

Who first told you the information?

Re-interviewed 7, 42, or 242 days later for bothtypes of memories

Flashbulb memories

Results:

Enhanced vividness

Enhanced confidence

But no increase in accuracy for flashbulb vs.everyday memories

Flashbulb memories

The act of retrieving a memory often leadsto distortions

Retelling the story

Can help via rehearsal processes

But can also lead to insertions that becomeincorporated into a memory for an event

Memory is a “constructive” process

Impossible memories can be implanted withstrong suggestion (Loftus, 1995, 1997)

“You’re family told us about this event”

Lost in the mallRescued by a lifeguardSpilled punchbowl at a wedding

9

Misleading post-event information

Loftus, 1979•Participants view one of two slides•Afterwards given either consistent or inconsistent information•Then asked to identify which picture they originally saw•75% accuracy when given consistent information•41% accuracy with inconsistent information

Fake photographs

“Tell me everything you can remember about thisevent, no matter how trivial” (Wade et al., 2002)

50% partially or clearly recalled the eventLots of detail… “I’m pretty sure it occurred when Iwas in 6th grade…I think my mum is on the groundtaking the picture”

Weapon Focus

Errors are more likely if eyewitness’s attention hasbeen distracted by something arousing during theevent

Divided attention

Eyewitness errors also can lead to failure toconvict a guilty person

Juries may label an eyewitness unreliable if:

Eyewitness misremembers details

Story contradicts another story

“Myths of memory” often drive a jury’s decisions

What can be done to minimize the problemsassociated with eyewitness memory?

What can be done to minimize the problemsassociated with eyewitness memory?