“Do You Hear What I Hear?”: Empirical Research on Earwitness Testimony

Abstract

Despite recurring empirical interest in eyewitness research, legal scholars have conducted far less research exploring the significance and limitations of earwitness testimony. Nevertheless, earwitness expert testimony serves an important purpose, which dates back many centuries. This Article analyzes empirical studies regarding earwitness testimony and places them into a recognized legal framework regarding admission of expert testimony. The result of this analysis demonstrates that, if courts believe that eyewitness testimony meets the restrictions on "junk science" employed by both Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the courts should also admit earwitness testimony under the same rationale. This Article, however, recognizes the many methodological issues in the study of earwitness testimony and addresses both the limitations in earwitness expert testimony and the hurdles it must face to meet the evidential standards of admissibility.

Identifying unfamiliar voices: Examining the system variables of sample duration and parade size

“…This article builds on the work done by Smith et al (2020) in proposing amendments to the Home Office (2003) voice parade procedures through improved understanding of system variables (Wells, 1978), that is, variables that are controllable by law enforcement. Importantly, while the focus of this article is centred on using the guidelines developed for use in England and Wales, the conclusions of this body of research are relevant to all jurisdictions where earwitness evidence is admitted as evidence; this includes much of Europe, the United States, Australia, and Canada (Broeders & van Amelsvoort, 2001; Cantone, 2010; Laub et al, 2013; McGorrery & McMahon, 2017). The present article focuses on providing evidence-based recommendations for the system variables of parade size and the voice sample duration .…”

Time to reflect on voice parades: The influence of reflection and retention interval duration on earwitness performance

“…The witness is asked to identify whether the voice of the perpetrator is present among a series of similar-sounding voices. Voice identification procedures are conducted across the world, including in Britain, Australia, Canada, various European states, and the United States (Broeders & van Amelsvoort, 2001;Cantone, 2010;de Jong-Lendle et al, 2015;Gfroerer & Jessen, 2022;Laub et al, 2013;McGorrery & McMahon, 2017). While the utility of voice parades in certain crime situations is undeniable and has, for example, been crucial in the successful prosecution of suspects in numerous British legal cases (Clifford, 1983; see Nolan, 2003, for an overview of R v. Khan and Bains, a case involving arson by murder), those familiar with voice identification research will be well aware that the outcomes of labbased studies generally show that accuracy rates are low (e.g., Kerstholt et al, 2004Kerstholt et al, , 2006Pautz et al, 2023;Smith et al, 2020).…”