Begin with a demo…. Look carefully at the following faces and The trouble with try to remember them as best you can…. eyewitness testimony April 1, 2008 Dana Roark, Ph.D. End ….test later! 1 Again, DNA frees a convict 12:02 AM CST on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 The woman initially told police that she By ROBERT THARP / The Dallas Morning News could not provide a detailed description of the man beyond a vague idea of his skin tone, race and height. The attack DNA testing is unlocking prison doors for occurred about an hour before sunrise, another wrongfully convicted Dallas man and the only light in the room came from on Tuesday, bringing to 10 the number of a window and the dial from a small clock felony exonerations in the county after radio. such tests in the last five years. About a week after the attack, a After maintaining his innocence for more than detective showed the woman photos of 25 years, Larry Fuller, 58, is expected to be six men, including an image of Mr. released from custody without any opposition Fuller. from prosecutors after an afternoon hearing. He was convicted of aggravated rape in 1981 The woman told police that Mr. Fuller's and sentenced to 50 years in prison based on photo "looks a lot like the guy," but she a sexual assault victim's identification of him. was not positive. Mistaken eyewitness identifications account for up to 80% of all wrongful convictions (Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, A detective returned a few days later with 2001) another photo lineup that included a more recent photo of Mr. Fuller with a beard. The woman identified Mr. Fuller's image but said she did not think her attacker had facial hair. During Mr. Fuller's trial, the victim testified that she was certain he was the man who raped her. Jurors deliberated 35 minutes before returning a guilty verdict. The perils of line-ups (Busey & Loftus, 2007) Juries find eyewitness testimony very compelling…especially when it is offered with a high level of confidence. Culprit presented along with 5 fillers who fit the description… Live or photographs “There is almost nothing more convincing than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says “That’s the one!”---Elizabeth Challenge is to administer an identification Loftus, 1979 procedure that is unbiased An innocent suspect has no greater chance of being identified than do the fillers Research has shown no correlation between accuracy and confidence of eyewitnesses (Smith, Kassin, & Ellsworth 1989) 2 Oddball bias 4 main ways line-ups can be biased (Busey & Loftus, 2007) Physical bias: fillers don’t fit the witness description For example….”White male with gap between teeth” If fillers don’t fit, then then functional size of line-up is reduced Physical bias: oddball Suspects picture is physically different from the fillers’ Larger, smaller, different background, different clothing, •Real example of line-up used in Tacoma, WA etc. •Suspect chosen by participants 26% of the time (chance = 17%) •Oddball effect is problematic even if it is very subtle 4 main ways line-ups can be biased Social pressure (cont.) (Busey & Loftus, 2007) Eyewitnesses make errors if they have been pressured to provide a specific answer (Roebers & Schneider, 2000) Lack of double blind procedures “Exactly when did you first see the suspect?” Police officer conducting the line-up shouldn’t Pressure to come up with a memory know the who the suspect is Rarely done in practice More accurate testimony if (Roediger & McDermott, Officer may inadvertently lead the witness…. “Is 2000): there anyone else you think it might be?” people are allowed to report in their own words given sufficient time Unconscious transference allowed to say, “I don’t know.” Witness has viewed the suspect at some time other than at the crime Eyewitness compliance ---eagerness to live in the same neighborhood please (Ost et al., 2002) Familiarity may bias identification “Did you see the television fragments of 1997 fatal crash Dianna, Princess of Whales?” 44% said yes, although no footage of this event exists! The effect of positive feedback Psychological evidence Errors are more likely if suspects have been given positive feedback (Wells & Bradfield, 1998) “Is it number 3?” The “I-never-forget-a-face” idea “Good, you identified the suspect.” Even a simple “okay” can be enough to make participants report during trial that they are “very Only partly true sure” A little corroboration is a powerful thing Familiar faces vs. unfamiliar faces Even if during the line-up they took 30 minutes to make a decision People are very good at recognizing faces they Witnesses talking to one another right after the know well… incident 3 People are very poor at recognizing faces they’ve seen only briefly or met only recently Here comes your face recognition test… new classmates bank teller, etc. Why? the same face can look very different under different viewing conditions lighting changes different expression different viewpoints, etc. OLD OLD or NEW? 4 OLD or NEW? NEW OLD or NEW? NEW OLD or NEW? OLD 5 CONCLUSION •Face recognition can be quite difficult if the learning and test images are very different, image- wise…. •Unfamiliar face recognition is a much different kind of task than recognizing people you know well •such as an old friend or family relative…… 10 very different images of (ex) P.M. Tony Blair Demonstration 2… 20 very different images of Paul McCartney The suspect Do you think you could recognize this person from a line-up? What factors would make it easier or harder? 6 The lineup Other perceptual factors A 1997 murder case in Alaska involving the murder of a teenage boy, resulted in the trial of 2 suspects. viewing time lighting conditions degree of focused attention The centerpiece of the prosecution’s case was the testimony cross-racial effects of Arlo Olson, who, while drunk, had seen the perpetrators at distance of the viewer (example) night and from a distance of 450 ft. Equivalent representations of a face viewed from different distances The defense lawyers called upon Geoffrey Loftus as an expert witness to educate the jury about: 1. perceptual problems of memorizing suspects 2. why Mr. Olson would have chosen the suspects from the line-ups 3. how it was possible to have a clear, confident memory that was false { resizing the image blurring Simulated distance of the image a face viewed from 450 feet away 7 Flashbulb memories Lessons from eyewitness suggestibility Extremely vivid, long lasting memories for unexpected, emotionally laden and Memories are malleable consequential events A synthesis, not a video tape 9-11 Memories can change based on what we read, see, and are told OJ Simpson verdict Kennedy assassination Source confusions are common Being told about something vs. remembering something Are these memories more accurate than everyday memories? Psychological science has yet to determine a reliable method for telling whether a memory is Actual: NO true or false Perceived accuracy: YES Flashbulb memories Flashbulb memories 9/11 research (Talarico & Rubin, 2003) Results: Interviewed participants Sept 12 Enhanced vividness Also asked about an “everyday memory” Enhanced confidence When did you first hear the news? But no increase in accuracy for flashbulb vs. everyday memories Who first told you the information? Re-interviewed 7, 42, or 242 days later for both types of memories Flashbulb memories Memory is a “constructive” process The act of retrieving a memory often leads to distortions Impossible memories can be implanted with strong suggestion (Loftus, 1995, 1997) Retelling the story “You’re family told us about this event” Can help via rehearsal processes Lost in the mall But can also lead to insertions that become Rescued by a lifeguard incorporated into a memory for an event Spilled punchbowl at a wedding 8 Misleading post-event information Fake photographs Loftus, 1979 •Participants view one of two slides “Tell me everything you can remember about this •Afterwards given either consistent or inconsistent information event, no matter how trivial” (Wade et al., 2002) •Then asked to identify which picture they originally saw 50% partially or clearly recalled the event •75% accuracy when given consistent information Lots of detail… “I’m pretty sure it occurred when I •41% accuracy with inconsistent information was in 6th grade…I think my mum is on the ground taking the picture” Weapon Focus Errors are more likely if eyewitness’s attention has Eyewitness errors also can lead to failure to been distracted by something arousing during the convict a guilty person event Divided attention Juries may label an eyewitness unreliable if: Eyewitness misremembers details Story contradicts another story “Myths of memory” often drive a jury’s decisions What can be done to minimize the problems What can be done to minimize the problems associated with eyewitness memory? associated with eyewitness memory? 9.