Factors affecting eyewitness memory and identification: Considering role of forensic psychologist

1. Presented to
Dr. Syeda Salma Hasan
by
Abrar Riaz
(MPhil Semester-I)
(Session: 2015-2017)
Department of Psychology
Government College University Lahore
Forensic Psychologist as an Expert-Witness
“Role in Eyewitness Identification”

2. Introduction
• Eyewitness identification and subsequent eyewitness testimony are important and integral
components of our criminal justice system.
• Eyewitness testimony is often some of the most compelling evidence offered in a trial.
• It has been estimated that eyewitness evidence plays a significant role in over 75,000
criminal cases annually in the United States (Goldstein, Chance, & Schneller, 1989).
• Mistaken eyewitness identifications are of great concern, especially in light of the significant
weight placed on the testimony of an eyewitness.
• Penrod and Cutler (1999) estimated that mistaken eyewitness identifications account for
approximately 4,500 wrongful convictions each year.
• Costanzo (1997) estimated that about a dozen people are executed each year for crimes they
did not commit, many involving faulty eyewitness identification.

3. Islamic (Quranic) View on Eyewitness
ۡ‫ی‬ِ‫ت‬ّٰ‫َال‬‫و‬ِ‫ا‬َ‫ف‬ ۚ ْ‫م‬ُ‫ک‬ ۡ‫ن‬ِ‫م‬ ً‫ۃ‬َ‫ع‬َ‫ب‬ْ‫ر‬َ‫ا‬ َّ‫ن‬ِ‫ہ‬ ۡ‫ی‬َ‫ل‬َ‫ع‬ ‫ا‬ ۡ‫و‬ُ‫د‬ِ‫ہ‬ ْ‫َش‬‫ت‬ ْ‫اس‬َ‫ف‬ ْ‫م‬ُ‫ک‬ِ‫ئ‬‫آ‬ َ‫س‬ِ‫ن‬ ۡ‫ن‬ِ‫م‬ َ‫ۃ‬ َ‫ش‬ِ‫ح‬ ٰ‫ف‬ْ‫ال‬ َ‫ن‬ ۡ‫ی‬ِ‫ت‬ۡ‫َا‬‫ی‬َّ‫ن‬ُ‫ہ‬ ۡ‫و‬ُ‫ک‬ِ‫س‬ْ‫م‬َ‫ا‬َ‫ف‬ ‫ا‬ ۡ‫و‬ُ‫د‬ِ‫ہ‬ َ‫ش‬ ۡ‫ن‬‫ی‬ِ‫ف‬ِ‫ت‬ ۡ‫و‬ُ‫ی‬ُ‫ب‬ْ‫ال‬َ‫م‬ْ‫ال‬ َّ‫ن‬ُ‫ہ‬‫ى‬ّٰ‫َف‬‫و‬َ‫ت‬َ‫ی‬ ‫ی‬ّٰ‫َت‬‫ح‬ْ‫و‬َ‫ا‬ ُ‫ت‬ْ‫و‬
﴿ ً‫ًل‬ ۡ‫ی‬ِ‫ب‬ َ‫س‬ َّ‫ن‬ُ‫ہ‬َ‫ل‬ ُ‫ہللا‬ َ‫ل‬َ‫ع‬ْ‫َج‬‫ی‬۱۵﴾
‫میں‬ ‫اپنے‬ ‫خاص‬ ‫پر‬ ‫ان‬ ‫کریں‬ ‫بدکاری‬ ‫جو‬ ‫میں‬ ‫عورتوں‬ ‫تمہاری‬ ‫اور‬‫کے‬‫ان‬ ‫تو‬ ‫دیں‬ ‫دے‬ ‫گواہی‬ ‫وہ‬ ‫اگر‬ ‫پھر‬ ‫لو‬ ‫گواہی‬ ‫کی‬ ‫مردوں‬ ‫چار‬
‫بند‬ ‫میں‬ ‫گھر‬ ‫کو‬ ‫عورتوں‬‫رکھو‬‫راہ‬ ‫کچھ‬ ‫کی‬ ‫ان‬ ّٰ‫اّٰلل‬ ‫یا‬ ‫اٹھالے‬ ‫موت‬ ‫انہیں‬ ‫کہ‬ ‫تک‬ ‫یہاں‬‫نکالے‬
(4:15, Al-Quran)
َ‫ن‬ ۡ‫ی‬ِ‫ذ‬َّ‫َال‬‫و‬ْ‫َل‬‫ج‬ َ‫ن‬ ۡ‫ی‬ِ‫ن‬ ٰ‫م‬َ‫ث‬ ْ‫م‬ُ‫ہ‬ ۡ‫و‬ُ‫د‬ِ‫ل‬ْ‫اج‬َ‫ف‬ َ‫ء‬ٓ‫َا‬‫د‬َ‫ہ‬ ُ‫ش‬ ِ‫ۃ‬َ‫ع‬َ‫ب‬ْ‫ر‬َ‫ا‬ِ‫ب‬ ‫ا‬ ۡ‫و‬ُ‫ت‬ۡ‫َا‬‫ی‬ ْ‫م‬َ‫ل‬ َّ‫م‬ُ‫ث‬ ِ‫ت‬ ٰ‫َن‬‫ص‬ْ‫ح‬ُ‫م‬ْ‫ال‬ َ‫ن‬ ۡ‫و‬ُ‫م‬ْ‫ر‬َ‫ی‬َ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ۡ‫و‬ُ‫ل‬َ‫ب‬َْْ‫ت‬ ََ َّ‫و‬ ًًَ‫د‬ُِْ‫س‬ ٰ‫ف‬ْ‫ال‬ ُ‫م‬ُ‫ہ‬ َ‫ک‬ِ‫ئ‬
ٰٓ‫ول‬ُ‫ا‬ َ‫و‬ ۚ ‫ا‬ً‫د‬َ‫ب‬َ‫ا‬ ًًَ‫د‬ ٰ‫ہ‬ َ‫ش‬ ْ‫م‬ُ‫ہ‬﴿﴿ َ‫ن‬ ۡ‫و‬۴﴾
‫اور‬‫کبھی‬ ‫گواہی‬ ٔ‫کوی‬ ‫کی‬ ‫ان‬ ‫اور‬ ‫لگاؤ‬ ‫کوڑے‬ ‫ی‬‫اس‬ ‫انہیں‬ ‫تو‬ ‫َئیں‬ ‫نہ‬ ‫کے‬ ‫معائنہ‬ ‫گواہ‬ ‫چار‬ ‫پھر‬ ‫لگائیں‬ ‫عیب‬ ‫کو‬ ‫عورتوں‬ ‫پارسا‬ ‫جو‬
‫نہ‬‫مانو‬‫فاسق‬ ‫وہی‬ ‫اور‬‫ہیں‬
(24:4, Al-Quran)
Character
Intelligence
Memory
Factors to Eyewitness
Acceptance:

4. Pakistan Law Perspective on Eyewitness
• Credibility-Character of eyewitness.
• Memory recall ability.
• Reliability of the statement provided.
• His/her legal privilege.
• Presence at the crime scene.
• Reason if he didn’t seek the help of security.
• Misinformation by client.
• Misattribution due to conformity bias.
• Distance from crime scene.
• Visual clarity.
• Proper recognition of factors.
• “Accused & accusing person by their selves can become their own eyewitness according to law.”
(www.nasirlawsite.com/llb3/evidence.htm)
(www.lawsofpakistan.com/introduction-of-
qanun-e-shahadat-order-1984-in-pakistan)

5. Factors
Affecting
Eyewitness
The Issue
of Memory
Witness
Characteristics
Situational
Factors
Unconscious
Transference
Misleading
Information
Lineups &
Photospreads
Demand
Characteristics
Wording of
Questions
Estimator
Variables
Post-event
Factors
System
Variables

6. • Estimator Variables- “are those that may affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony but
that the criminal justice system does not have any control over”.
Description of each of the Factors/Variables
THE ISSUE OF MEMORY
When eyewitnesses describe a criminal
or pick a suspect out of a lineup,
they are relying on memory.
Memory can be influenced by a range of
factors and there is evidence to show
that memory can be affected by
later events and questioning style.
A stop sign, for example, is replaced in
memory with a yield sign or an empty
field is replaced in memory with a field
containing a red barn
WITNESS CHARACTERISTICS
Race: Meissner and Brigham (2001) conducted a
meta analysis of 39 studies and found that within –
race identifications were significantly more likely to
be accurate than cross - race identifications (also
known as own - race bias ).
Gender: Research on gender differences in
eyewitness identification indicates that there is no
evidence that females are any better or worse than
males.
Age: Research has examined the differences between
adults and children in terms of eyewitness testimony.

7. Duration of EventThe research on facial recognition suggests a positive
relationship between time & accuracy such that longer a
witness is exposed to a perpetrator, more accurate his or her
eyewitness testimony
Majority of crimes occur during a brief period of time,
witnesses tend to overestimate the amount of time that they
were exposed to the perpetrator.
Environmental Factors
Amount & type of light at the crime scene is related to how
well an eyewitness is able to see
Distance between witness & observed event is a factor as is
whether there was additional simultaneous activity or other
distracters.
Weapon Focus
Research has indicated that eyewitnesses are significantly
influenced by the visual presence of a weapon.
When a weapon, such as a knife or gun, is present, witnesses ’
memory for other details is impaired.
Stress/Arousal
SITUATIONAL FACTORS
Performance is lowest at very high and very low levels of
stress/arousal. This is known as the Yerkes - Dodson law
Eyewitnesses who experience high levels of stress/arousal
are less accurate in their identifications and less reliable.

8. Lineups &
Photospreads
• Given that a
suspect almost
immediately
becomes a
culprit once he
or she has been
selected from a
photospread
• Sources of
eyewitness
identification
errors in
photospreads
and lineups:
instructions,
structure, and
procedure.
Demand
Characteristics
• Asking the
witness to
point out the
perpetrator in
the courtroom
is another
situation that
sets up a high
demand for the
witness to
select the
individual
whom he or
she has
previously
identified in a
lineup or
photospread.
Witness
Confidence
• Highly
confident
witnesses may
be inaccurate
while less
confident
witnesses may
be accurate.
• Successive
identifications
increases a
witness ’
confidence
which, in turn,
increases his or
her
persuasiveness
but not his or
her accuracy.
Post-Event Factors; & System Variables- “affect the accuracy of eyewitness
testimony that the criminal justice system has some control over”.
Passage of
Time
• Ebbinghaus
(1964)
determined
that the rate of
forgetting is
steepest
immediately
after the event
and then levels
off.
• Eyewitnesses
forget things
over time and,
therefore,
accuracy
diminishes as
more time
passes
Misleading
Information
• Misleading
information,
often in the
form of leading
questions or
suggestive
comments, can
affect the
accuracy of an
eyewitness ’
recall.
• Recall of
eyewitnesses
can be
influenced by
misleading
questions or
statements,
questions’
wording.
Unconscious
Transference
• When a
witness
remembers a
face but
inaccurately
attributes the
face to a
different
context it is
referred to as
unconscious
transference.
• Eyewitness
mistakenly
identifies an
innocent
bystander who
was present at
the crime scene
as the

9. SAFEGUARDS AND PROTECTIONS
Investigation
Procedures
Rule 1: Who
Conducts the
Lineup
Rule 2:
Instructions
on Viewing
Rule 3:
Structure of
Lineup or
Photospread
Rule 4:
Obtaining
Confidence
Statements
Rule 5:
Videotaping
the Lineup
and Witness
Identification Courtroom
Procedures
Expert
Testimony
Judicial
Instructions

10. • Jennifer Thompson was a 22-year-old college student living in North Carolina. At about 3:00 AM one morning, a
man broke into her apartment, held a knife to her throat, and raped her.
• During her long ordeal, the rapist allowed her to get up. When she went to the bathroom she turned on the light
and used the opportunity to get a good look at her attacker. She also managed to briefly turn on a lamp in the
bedroom and get another good look at him before he turned the lamp off. When the rapist turned on the stereo, his
face was illuminated by the faint light from the stereo equipment.
• Despite her terror, Jennifer forced herself to study his face. She told the rapist that she was thirsty and he let her to
go to the kitchen to get a drink. The kitchen door—where the rapist had broken into her apartment—was still
open.
• She ran from her apartment to a neighbor’s house. The rapist did not follow. But later that night, less than a mile
from Jennifer’s apartment, he broke into another apartment and raped another woman.
• At the police station, Jennifer looked through sketches of different types of noses, different types of eyes, different
mouths. With Jennifer’s direction, a police sketch artist created a composite drawing of the rapist. He was an
African American man, in his 20s or 30s, with short hair and a thin mustache. The composite drawing was widely
circulated and the police received several calls from people claiming to recognize the suspect.
A CASE EXAMPLE-“THE MISTAKEN
IDENTITY OF RONALD COTTON ”

11. • Based on those calls, police put together a photo lineup of six pictures. Jennifer looked at the photo spread for a few
minutes and identified Ronald Cotton, a man who worked at a local seafood restaurant & he was arrested.
• No solid physical evidence was presented at trial—no fingerprints, no hairs from the rapist, nothing conclusive
from the semen analysis. At the crime scene, police found a tiny piece of foam that might have come from a type of
athletic shoe owned by Ronald Cotton. There was evidence that Cotton owned a flashlight similar to the one used
by the rapist. And there was a compelling eyewitness identification.
• During the trial, she pointed out Ronald Cotton as her assailant and told the jurors that she was certain that he was
the man who raped her. The jurors were convinced and Cotton was sentenced to life in prison.
• Two years into his prison sentence, Cotton was told by another inmate that a third inmate—a man named Bobby
Poole—had said that he knew Cotton was innocent. Bobby Poole said he knew this because he was the one who
had raped the two women more than 2 years earlier. Cotton was eventually granted a second trial. At the second
trial, Poole testified but denied any involvement in the two rapes. There was another witness who had not testified
at the first trial: the second rape victim. Although she identified the wrong man in a lineup 2 years earlier, she
testified that she was now certain that Ronald Cotton was the man who raped her. At the second trial, Cotton was
convicted of both rapes and sent back to prison.

12. • For 8 more years, Cotton spent most of his time in prison writing letters to anyone who might be able to help
overturn his convictions. He probably would have died in prison if he had not been able to convince a law professor
and attorney named Richard Rosen to look more closely at his case. Rosen did some investigation and found that
the biological evidence in Cotton’s case (a semen sample) was still well-preserved in a police storage facility. In the
10 years that had passed since the first trial, DNA testing had developed to the point that it could positively identify
any offender who left behind biological evidence. The semen sample was subjected to DNA analysis and Cotton
was excluded. The sample was then compared to a blood sample from Bobby Poole. It was a match. Ronald Cotton
was released from prison and Bobby Poole was charged with both rapes. Although Jennifer Thompson now knows
that she identified the wrong man, the image in her mind hasn’t changed, “It’s still Ronald Cotton’s face I see . . . .
Even today, when I have nightmares about the rape, I still don’t see Bobby Poole” (Thompson, 2000).
{Bobby Poole (left) and Ronald
Cotton (middle) at the time of
the crime, and a composite
sketch of the rapist (right)}.

13. EXPERT TESTIMONY
• Psychologists may be called as experts to testify about eyewitness identifications.
• In general, this type of testimony focuses on the factors that may impact accurate eyewitness identification in an
attempt to educate the jury about the possibility of false or mistaken identifications.
• The psychologist would explain the research on eyewitness identifications to the jury but would not comment on
whether the characteristics of the particular eyewitness in the case or whether the eyewitness was mistaken in his or
her identification of the perpetrator.

14. References
Bottoms, B., & Goodman, G. S. (1994). Perceptions of children ’ s credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 24 , 702 – 732.
Buckhout, R. (1974). Eyewitness testimony. Scientifi c American, 231 , 23 – 31.
Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). The suggestibility of the child eyewitness: A historical
review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113 , 403 – 439.
Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientifi c analysis of
children ’s testimony . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dekle, D. J., Beal, C. R., Elliott, R., & Huneycutt, D. (1996). Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup
versus showup identifi cation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10 , 1 – 12.
Ebbinghaus, H. E. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology . New York: Dover.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Flin, R., Boone, J., Knox, A., & Bull, R. (1992). The effect of a fi ve - month delay
Goldstein, A. G., Chance, J. E., & Schneller, G. R. (1989). Frequency of eyewitness identifi cation in criminal
cases: A survey of prosecutors. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society , 27, 71 – 74.

15. ? ?
? ? Questions? ?
? ?
?

16. Thank You