Retrieval does not always enhance suggestibility: testing can improve witness identification performance.

Verbally recalling the appearance of a perpetrator and the details of an event can sometimes hinder later eyewitness memory performance. In two experiments, we investigated the effects of verbally recalling a face on people's ability to resist subsequent misinformation about that face. Participants watched a video of a theft and then completed either a recall test or a distractor activity. After a delay, some participants heard a piece of misinformation. Memory was assessed with a recall test in Experiment 1 and with a target-present lineup in Experiment 2. In both experiments, initial testing reduced eyewitness suggestibility for the face.

Solving crimes with hypnosis.

Following a brief review of the literature on hypnosis and memory, this paper overviews the procedures that are used in conducting forensic hypnosis interviews. Ten forensic hypnosis cases are then described. These real world cases are in stark contrast to research done in an artificial laboratory setting where the information to be recalled lacks personal relevance and was not associated with emotionally arousing situations. These cases illustrate how forensic hypnosis can result in obtaining important additional investigative leads which lead to the solving of crimes.

Inoculation or antidote? The effects of cognitive interview timing on false memory for forcibly fabricated events.

This study examined whether a cognitive interview (CI) can counteract the effects of suggestive interviews involving forced fabrication. College students witnessed a filmed event and were later forced to fabricate answers to misleading questions about the event. All witnesses were interviewed with a non-leading CI or free recall (FR) either before or after the forced fabrication phase. A week later participants completed a recognition and source monitoring (SM) test of video content. Relative to FR, the CI administered before the forced fabrication interview increased reports of correct details and reduced false assents to fabricated items. A CI after resulted in false memory rates comparable to the FR group. Early interviews using CI techniques may protect against memory loss and misinformation effects.

On the presumption of evidentiary independence: can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications?

A confession is potent evidence, persuasive to judges and juries. Is it possible that a confession can also affect other evidence? The present study tested the hypothesis that a confession will alter eyewitnesses' identification decisions. Two days after witnessing a staged theft and making an identification decision from a lineup that did not include the thief, participants were told that certain lineup members had confessed or denied guilt during a subsequent interrogation. Among those participants who had made a selection but were told that another lineup member confessed, 61% changed their identifications. Among those participants who had not made an identification, 50% went on to select the confessor when his identity was known. These findings challenge the presumption in law that different forms of evidence are independent and suggest an important overlooked mechanism by which innocent confessors are wrongfully convicted: Potentially exculpatory evidence is corrupted by a confession itself.

How effective is the motion-to-suppress safeguard? Judges' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures.

The motion-to-suppress safeguard is designed to prevent false eyewitness identifications from leading to wrongful convictions. This safeguard is effective only if judges are sensitive to factors that influence lineup suggestiveness. The present study assessed judge sensitivity to foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Judges (N = 99) read a description of a hypothetical crime, perpetrator, and identification procedure followed by a motion to suppress the identification. Judges completed a questionnaire in which they ruled on the motion and rated the lineup's suggestiveness and fairness. Foil bias and instruction bias influenced judges' rulings and lineup evaluations as predicted. Hypotheses concerning presentation bias were not supported. These results suggest that judges are somewhat sensitive to lineup suggestiveness but there is room for improvement.

How effective is the presence-of-counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability of biased lineup procedures.

Criminal defendants should be protected from suggestive lineup procedures by the presence of their attorneys at lineups. This protection is effective only if attorneys are sensitive to factors that affect lineup suggestiveness. This study assessed attorney sensitivity to foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Stimuli were 8 videotaped lineups in which the 3 factors were manipulated between subjects. Assistant public defenders (N = 109) viewed the videotapes and completed a questionnaire that assessed perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability. Attorneys were very sensitive to foil bias but only somewhat sensitive to instruction bias. Their perceptions of presentation bias were contrary to empirical research results. Attorneys reported that they are rarely present at lineups. These results imply that the presence-of-counsel safeguard may be less effective than it could and should be.