Courts Lag the Evidence in Eyewitness Identification

Reliability of Eyewitness Information

What are some dynamics that impact the reliability of eyewitness information?

The Manson case presents a limited framework from the enormous corpus of eyewitness identification literature, thereby resulting in its common use for exploration of and discussion about eyewitness reliability issues (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). The key concepts of this case are as follows: attention, eyewitness certainty, passage of time, procedural suggestiveness, verbal descriptions, and view (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). The lineup process is vulnerable to procedural suggestiveness on several dimensions that ask or cue eyewitness to do something (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). Several variables are known to evoke more confidence from an eyewitness that they were able to clearly see the details in the accused's face, including a comment confirming the accuracy of the witness's identification of a culprit in a lineup (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). Interestingly, the research consistently has shown that "accurate identifications from lineups are made faster than are mistaken identifications (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009).

How have the court systems in America dealt with the reliability factors of eyewitness testimony?

The courts have established a two-prong totality standard for the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence. A propensity of the courts is to rule that procedural suggestiveness does not carry more weight than the reliability test that was put forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Manson v. Braithwaite (1977). The U.S. Supreme Court has been silent on the issue of eyewitness identification issues since 1977, but state courts have determined that Manson is not sufficient for their jurisdictions. Kansas and Utah have moved to use more refined test criteria reflecting social science literature. New York and Massachusetts insist on an automatic suppression of suggestive procedures that are considered unnecessary. Wisconsin requires suppression of show-ups in most instances, and Connecticut has mandated jury instruction if eyewitness has not heard the "present or not present" caution in pre-lineup instructions. Georgia has removed the instruction to jurors about considering the confidence of an eyewitness when they evaluate the testimony given. Overall, the courts have been passive in their acceptance of unnecessarily suggestive procedures that increase the probability of mistaken identification -- a particularly troubling issue since the police are quite capable of a duty of care regarding non-suggestive procedures with eyewitness identification evidence, were they only pressed by the courts to do so.

Of the five criteria set by the courts for the reliability test, which one do you believe to be the weakest? Why?

The reliability criteria that have been developed as the science of eyewitness information advanced include the following: View, attention, certainty, descriptions, and time between crime and confrontation (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). Of the five reliability criteria, three -- view, attention, and certainty -- are attributes of retrospective self-reports. Certainty is the criteria that I believe is the weakest since the literature is replete with studied that show how fallible the certainty of an eyewitness's testimony can be. Strong empirical evidence exists to show that retrospective self-reports frequently do not match the presentation of objective facts (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). Retrospective self-reports have been shown to be quite malleable and people are not skilled at identifying which factors influence their self-reports (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977). Several of the reliability criteria are not independent of one another nor are they linear in nature concern (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). Moreover, the suggestiveness augmentation effect presents a serious and substantive threat to the reliability of the two-prong totality approach that guides Manson concern (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009). Notably, a disincentive is created for prosecutors or police to avoid suggestive procedures, and there is relation between the suggestive procedures, the skew of the resulting retrospective self-reports, and the placement of the witness on the criteria -- all of which results in dismissal of the suggestiveness concern (Wells & Quinlivan, 2009).