NCJ Number
97077
Journal
American Journal of Criminal Law Volume: 12 Issue: 2 Dated: (July 1984) Pages: 189-220
Date Published
1984
Length
32 pages
Annotation
The U.S. Supreme Court has ignored dangers arising from the inherent unreliability of eyewitness identification; reforms are needed to help juries assess the validity of eyewitness testimony.
Abstract
Although eyewitness misidentification is the single most frequent cause of wrongful conviction, the American judiciary has refused to give or allow juries special guidance on refused to give or allow juries special guidance on factors affecting human memory. Research studies indicate that distortion occurs in each of the three stages of the memory process -- acquisition, retention, and retrieval -- to such an extent that even eyewitness identifications made under optimal conditions are highly suspect. This information is unknown to the average juror. Moreover, widely held beliefs about the correlation between confidence and memory, effects of stress on memory, and the accuracy of cross-racial identification have been proven false. Safeguards fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wade, Gilbert v. California, and Stovall v. Denno addressed only lineups, and even these minimal safeguards have been drastically narrowed by subsequent decisions. Some safeguards against wrongful convictions are exclusion of eyewitness identification evidence under circumstances indicative of unreliability, abolition of the rule that permits conviction on the uncorroborated identification testimony of a single witness, and a rule prohibiting convictions based solely on eyewitness identification evidence. Preferred reforms that provide the jury with additional information to increase its effectiveness include admission of expert psychological testimony and cautionary jury instructions. The paper provides 241 footnotes.