Eyewitness Testimony

Meta-analysis of facial identification studies.

“…Having psychologists appear as expert witnesses on factors relevant to eyewitness performance is an issue that has generated substantial debate both within the legal profession and in psychological circles (Addison, 1978; Ellison & Buckhout, 1981; McClosky & Egeth, 1983b; Weinstein, 1981; Wells & Loftus, 1984; Woocher, 1977). Although some investigators assert that the level of knowledge justifies the use of expert witnesses (Loftus, 1983a, 1983b), others oppose this practice (McClosky & Egeth, 1983a, 1983b).…”

The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables.

“…The view that psychologists should provide expert testimony on eyewitness memory in cases in which eyewitness recall or recognition is a primary source of evidence has been advocated by psychologists (Loftus, 1983a; Penrod, Loftus, & Winkler, 1982), lawyers (Frazzini, 1981; Stein, 1981; Woocher, 1977), and judges (Bazelon, 1980; Weinstein, 1981). This view is predicated on the assumption that psychologists have an adequate foundation of empirical literature from which to draw when informing the judge and the jury on psychological factors that influence eyewitness memory.…”

The Process Is the Punishment: Thirty Years Later

“…In my mind, this has the potential to be one of the most practically important direct applications of Feeley's arguments. For example, in a review of a book on eyewitness testimony, Weinstein (1981) notes that while problems with false confessions are important and consequential, they are far outweighed by “what accounts for probably the largest number of false‐convictions—guilty pleas entered to avoid some of the burdens and risks of dealing with the criminal justice system” (449). Other authors have also been concerned with systemic pressures to plead out (Albonetti 1986; Alschuler 1981, 1983; Bibas 2004; Figueira‐McDonough 1985).…”