Reforms to Protect Against Conviction of the Innocent:

Mistaken Eyewitness Identification

Prof. Jacqueline McMurtrie

April 4, 2006

Wrongful Convictions

The Innocence Project 175 inmates released through DNA testing.

Exonerations in the United States (Gross et al.)

328 exonerations from 1989 - 2003.144 DNA and 196 non-DNA.

Innocence Project Northwest11 wrongfully convicted inmates released since 1997.

Factors Leading to Conviction of the Innocent

Mistaken eyewitness identification.Coerced confessions.Unreliable forensic laboratory work.Police misconduct.Prosecutorial Misconduct.Ineffective representation by Counsel.

Nu

mb

er

of

Cases

Factors Leading to Wrongful Convictions in 62 U.S. Cases

Factors Leading to Wrongful Convictions

DNAInclusions

OtherForensicInclusions

FalseConfessions

Informants/Snitches

BadLawyering

MicroscopicHair

Comparison

Defectiveor

FraudulentScience

ProsecutorialMisconduct

PoliceMisconduct

SerologyInclusion

MistakenID

Te xt

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 5 15 15 15 17 18 21 26 32 52

Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer, ACTUAL INNOCENCE (2000)

Reforms to Protect the Innocent

Mistaken eyewitness identification.

Schemas

Script – events where we expect a particular sequence of events to occur.

Role – occupations, social roles, or social groups.

Person – Different personality types .

Witnessing an Event.

Click on the next slide to witness a videotaped event. You will view the event from perspective of camera. Put yourself in the shoes of the person whose arm you see opening the office door.After you view the event, immediately write down a description of what has just occurred. Describe in detail the person you observed (age, height, weight, clothing), and the person’s precise actions. Try to include as many details as possible.

Viewing a photomontage

Imagine that you have now been brought to the police station to view a photomontage.Do you think the police have identified a suspect?The next slide is the photomontage.Do you see the suspect? Who is it?

1 2 3

4 5 6

Reforms to Protect the Innocent

Mistaken eyewitness identification.“Double-blind” identification procedures.• Positive feedback distorts confidence and

reinforces false identification.*

* Bradfield, Wells & Olson, The Damaging Effect of Confirming Feedback on the Relation Between Eyewitness Certainty and Identification Accuracy, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 87, 112-120 (2002).

Click on the next slide to see the actual perpetrator.

1 2 3

4 5 6

Reforms to Protect the Innocent

Mistaken eyewitness identification.“Double-blind” identification procedures.• Positive feedback distorts confidence and

reinforces false identification.* Sequential, rather than simultaneous identification procedures.• Relative Judgment

* Bradfield, Wells & Olson, The Damaging Effect of Confirming Feedback on the Relation Between Eyewitness Certainty and Identification Accuracy, JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 87, 112-120 (2002).

Click on the next slide to see how a sequential photomontage procedure would be administered.

Reforms to Protect the Innocent

Mistaken eyewitness identification.“Double-blind” lineups•Positive feedback distorts confidence and

reinforces false identificationSequential, rather than simultaneous lineups•Relative Judgment

“Fillers” that Match description of perpetrator, not suspectDisclaimerContinuum of identification