Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

Abstract

It is well known that the frailties of human memory and vulnerability to suggestion lead to eyewitness identification errors. However, variations in different aspects of the eyewitnessing conditions produce different kinds of errors that are related to wrongful convictions in very different ways. We present a review of the eyewitness identification literature, organized around underlying cognitive mechanisms, memory, similarity, and decision processes, assessing the effects on both correct and mistaken identification. In addition, we calculate a conditional probability we call innocence risk, which is the probability that the suspect is innocent, given that the suspect was identified. Assessment of innocence risk is critical to the theoretical development of eyewitness identification research, as well as to legal decision making and policy evaluation. Our review shows a complex relationship between misidentification and innocence risk, sheds light on some areas of controversy, and suggests that some issues thought to be resolved are in need of additional research.

Faces in Motion: Age‐Related Changes in Eyewitness Identification Performance in Simultaneous, Sequential, and Elimination Video Lineups

“…Although, the elimination lineup procedure was specifically designed for use with child witnesses (Pozzulo & Lindsay, 1999), the finding that this procedure can also benefit the identification performance of adult witnesses is consistent with previous findings (Pozzulo & Balfour;2006;. The increased correct rejection rate that has been reported in the literature with a sequential line-up for adult witnesses however, was not replicated (for reviews see, Clark & Godfrey, 2009;Steblay et al, 2001;Steblay et al, 2011). Consistent with previous research however, children's correct rejection rates were not facilitated with the sequential video lineup…”

“…On the other hand, other research has found that correct identification rates are reduced when a lineup is sequentially administered (Clark & Godfrey, 2009;Flowe & Ebbesen, 2007;Lindsay et al, 1997;McQuiston-Surrett et al, 2006;Steblay et al, 2001;Steblay et al, 2011).…”

“…The sequential lineup has typically been shown to reduce adult witnesses false identification rates without affecting correct identification rates compared to a simultaneous lineup (e.g., Cutler & Penrod, 1988;Kneller, Memon & Stevenage, 2001;Lindsay & Bellinger, 1999;Lindsay, Lea, & Fulford, 1991a;Lindsay, Lea, Nosworthy, Fulford, Hector, LeVan & Seabrook, 1991b;MacLin, Zimmerman & Malpass, 2005;Sporer, 1993). There is some evidence however, that the decrease in adult's false identifications in sequential lineups is associated with a reduction in correct suspect identifications (Clark & Godfrey, 2009;Steblay, et al, 200;Steblay et al, 2011).…”

“…The two most common of these are the simultaneous lineup (i.e., all lineup members are presented at once) and the sequential lineup (i.e., lineup members are presented serially) (for reviews see, Clark & Godfrey, 2009;Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001;Steblay, Dysart, & Wells, 2011). The sequential lineup has typically been shown to reduce adult witnesses false identification rates without affecting correct identification rates compared to a simultaneous lineup (e.g., Cutler & Penrod, 1988;Kneller, Memon & Stevenage, 2001;Lindsay & Bellinger, 1999;Lindsay, Lea, & Fulford, 1991a;Lindsay, Lea, Nosworthy, Fulford, Hector, LeVan & Seabrook, 1991b;MacLin, Zimmerman & Malpass, 2005;Sporer, 1993).…”

Crime Type, Perceived Stereotypicality, and Memory Biases: A Contextual Model of Eyewitness Identification

“…Decades of research demonstrate the frailty of eyewitness memory (see Clark & Godfrey, 2009;Wells & Olson, 2003). Although this literature has done an excellent job of documenting when errors in eyewitness identification are likely to occur, little is known about whether the type of crime committed (i.e., the crime type) systematically affects who eyewitnesses mistakenly identify.…”