dada_floridamisidentification_final - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

i. Who Conducts the Identification ProcedureThe police to arrive at the scene of the crime are charged with the initial investigation.Besides collecting physical evidence they must also interview and conduct severaldifferent types of identification procedures to obtain a proper suspect. As the ones whoconduct these types of identification procedures, they are extremely influential on thememory of the eyewitness.Tunnel vision which is a natural human tendency that leads actors in the criminaljustice system to “focus on a suspect, select and filter the evidence that will build a casefor conviction, while ignoring or suppressing evidence that points away from guilt” 36begins at the investigation stage of a criminal charge. Police may feel an exerted pressurefrom the victim, community and supervisors to produce a suspect and that pressure canlead to investigative tunnel vision. 37 Furthermore, investigators can become attached totheir theory of the suspect and the criminal investigation can shift from open ended toproving that the preferred suspect is the criminal. 38For example, in lineups when the investigator or administrator is aware of theidentification of the suspect, scientific studies indicate that the administrator mayintentionally or unintentionally cause the eyewitness to choose the suspect through verbaland nonverbal cues. 39 Researchers attribute this phenomenon to the fact that:[T]his interaction between the lineup administrator and the eyewitness is ahighly interpersonal process. Research on experimenter-expectancy effectsshow how powerful such interpersonal process can be, especially whenclose physical distance between the interactants allows for eye contract,visible facial expressions, and verbal exchanges. The absence of videorecordings in these interactions make it difficult or impossible to knowwhat role might have been played by the lineup administrator in leadingthe eyewitness to select a particular lineup member. 40Thus, the investigators that are aware of the identity of their suspects may be partialand lead the witness to a particular suspect.ii. How Identification Procedures are ConductedMisidentification occurs as a result of procedural defects and police suggestivenesswhen the identification is conducted. Faulty identification methods greatly increase errorsthat are the byproduct of eyewitnesses’ relative judgment.36 Findley, supra note 18, at 292.37 Id. at 323.38 Id. at 326.39 Wise et al., supra note 10, at 493.40 Wells et al., supra note 31, at 21.6
Lineups are usually proctored with five or six people in the group. Lineups aresuggestive when the suspect is the only one who fits the eyewitness’s prior description ofthe culprit. 41 For example, suggestion is evident when the suspect is the only person inthe lineup wearing the same type of clothing that the suspect was wearing during thecrime. 42 Yet another instance of suggestiveness involves a suspect that does not fit theinitial description of the culprit. If the suspect is in a line-up with five other persons whodo fit the initial description, then that can lead the eyewitness to unintentionally pick theparticular suspect because he stands apart from the rest. 43Suggestiveness can also be evident in photospreads if the photo of the suspect hassome distinguishing feature that would lead the eyewitness to unknowingly choose thatparticular photo based simply on that feature. For example, if the suspects photo wastaken from a different angle than other photos. 44“The presence of features that make the suspect stand out from the distractersconfounds our ability to conclude that the selection of the suspect was due to truerecognition versus some of suggestion, demand or inference.” 45Furthermore, although show-ups are constitutional in exigent circumstances they canbe “considered suggestive in the sense that they convey to the eyewitness which person isthe suspect, thereby standing in contrast to the line-ups-as-experiments analogy in whichthe test itself should not communicate the hypothesis of the tester.” 46These three methods of identification are faulty since investigators are relying on therelative judgment of the eyewitness. As previously discussed, relative judgment is anatural tendency of the eyewitness to “simply identify the person who best resembles theculprit relative to the others in the line-up”. 47 These procedures are not indicative ofaccuracy, rather the eyewitness might feel pressure to choose any suspect that might befeatured differently than others. Thus, accuracy of the identification is dependent uponhow the investigator conducted the procedure.iii. When the Identification Procedures are ConductedTiming is one more factor that can contribute to the faulty investigative procedures.The length of time between the crime and the confrontation is the easiest way tocontribute to eyewitness memory error. Studies indicate that forgetting details of a crimecan occur rapidly and post event information can interfere with the eyewitness’s memoryof the crime. 48 When investigators fail to interview eyewitnesses in a timely manner itcan lead to failed memory, inaccurate details and flawed confidence for the eyewitness.41 Id. at 24.42 Id.43 Id.44 Id.45 Wells et al., supra note 31.46 Id. at 24.47 Id. at 23.48 Wise et al., supra note 10, at 456.7
Page 1: EYEWITNESS MISIDENTIFICATION AND TH
Page 4 and 5: There are three biases that studies
Page 8 and 9: In short, investigations that are n
Page 10 and 11: confrontations. The factors to be c
Page 12 and 13: Lauderdale, Florida where she turne
Page 14 and 15: asic training course, regulated by
Page 16 and 17: Pre-emptive, cost effective measure
Page 18 and 19: experiments indicate that about fou
Page 20 and 21: Therefore, to guarantee a sufficien

dada_floridamisidentification_final - UDC Law Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?