PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12209024

Eyewitness testimony.

Gary L Wells·Elizabeth A Olson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The criminal justice system relies heavily on eyewitness identification for investigating and prosecuting crimes. Psychology has built the only scientific literature on eyewitness identification and has warned the justice system of problems with eyewitness identification evidence. Recent DNA exoneration cases have corroborated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of these innocent people. We review major developments in the experimental literature concerning the way that various factors relate to the accuracy of eyewitness identification. These factors include characteristics of the witness, characteristics of the witnessed event, characteristics of testimony, lineup content, lineup instructions, and methods of testing. Problems with the literature are noted with respect to both the relative paucity of theory and the scarcity of base-rate information from actual cases.

Explore related subjects

Criminal LawHumansMental RecallReproducibility of ResultsResearchSuggestionVisual PerceptionJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gary L Wells, Elizabeth A Olson. 2002-06-10. Eyewitness testimony.. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

God's signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic science.

In the mid-1980s, when the first DNA profiling techniques were developed, the name DNA 'fingerprinting' was widely used. At the time, fingerprinting was a well-established forensic method, and it was rarely questioned in the courts. Fingerprint examiners were permitted to describe matching prints as evidence of individual identity, and they were not required to give probability estimates. Despite its nominal association with the older technique, DNA 'fingerprinting' went through a period of controversy, especially in the US courts. The association with fingerprinting was questioned, and experts were required to qualify their testimony with probability figures. Heated debate occurred in scientific publications and law courts about the statistical and population genetic assumptions that went into the probability calculations presented in court cases. However, by the late 1990s DNA profiling was so widely accepted that it became a basis for invidious comparison with all other forms of forensic evidence, including fingerprinting. In the past three years, the admissibility of fingerprint evidence has been challenged in several US federal and state courts. This article discusses the socio-legal and socio-technical issues that led to the inversion of credibility that characterized the intertwined history of the two techniques.

Criminal Law↗