NCJ Number
82829
Journal
Social Action and the Law Volume: 7 Issue: 5/6 Dated: (1981) Pages: 76-79
Date Published
1981
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Findings and implications are presented from a survey of attorneys to determine how they view reliability of eyewitness testimony.
Abstract
Packets of six questionnaires were sent to the central public defender's office and central State attorney's office in each of Florida's 20 judicial circuits in August 1979. Followup letters were sent 6 weeks later. Questionnaires and cover letters were also sent to a sample of 250 private criminal defense attorneys in February and March 1980. The questionnaire was designed to obtain information on (1) how frequently attorneys are involved with corporeal lineups, photo lineups, live showups, and 'mug books;' (2) estimated frequency of mistaken eyewitness identification; (3) the effects of several witness and suspect characteristics on the accuracy identifications; (4) opinions on the amount of emphasis judges and juries should give eyewitness evidence; (5) the relationship between identification accuracy and how certain a witness is; and (6) the effect of stress or arousal on identification accuracy. Survey findings indicate that prosecutors generally feel that eyewitness identification is relatively accurate and is given the appropriate emphasis by judges and juries. Defense attorneys, on the other hand, tend to view eyewitness evidence as often inaccurate and as having too much weight in courtroom deliberations. The use of expert witnesses to inform the court about scientific findings on the conditions affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony is discussed, and 20 references are listed.