NCJ Number
101658
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 10 Issue: 1-2 Dated: (June 1986) Pages: 117-126
Date Published
1986
Length
10 pages
Annotation
No adequate scientific foundation exists for expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification.
Abstract
In addition, the attention that psychologists have given to eyewitness identification issues is far out of proportion to the incidence of trials involving eyewitness identifications of criminal defendants. Loh estimates that eyewitness evidence is used in only about 5 percent of criminal trials, and about half of these cases had additional evidence or more than one witness. Data also indicate that concern about wrongful convictions based on eyewitness identification is also probably misplaced. A further problem is the methodology used in studies of eyewitness performance. Nearly all of the existing studies are simulations. Almost none have been validated in terms of real situations, stimuli, and subject samples, either in general or in reference to a particular trial, defendant, and crime. Various possible solutions to this problem are to do nothing, to present friend-of-court briefs, to use a concordance of experts, to stage crimes for experimental purposes, and to conduct special purpose experiments. All these approaches present significant problems. The most promising approach is to conduct archival research to provide a broad array of base-rate information and to place eyewitness issues in a broader context. 20 references. (Author abstract modified)