Coke Machines, Willie Nelson Lookalikes, and the Failure of Manson v. Brathwaite

The following, from a real court decision:

Barnett testified that Mrs. Hayden told him the intruder was short and stocky, approximately 5'4 to 5'6 in height, that he had long hair, and that he was in his middle 20's. At trial, Mrs. Hayden testified that she told Barnett that the intruder was between 5' and 5'4 tall, that he had red hair, and that he had a red bandana tied around his head. Later in the day, after defendant had been apprehended, Deputy Barnett called Mrs. Hayden, told her he thought they had caught the person who had broken into her home, and asked her to come to the courthouse to see if she could identify the suspect. She went to the courthouse where she viewed a lineup. The lineup, which was reminiscent of a scene from the television show Saturday Night Live, consisted of the defendant, who bore a resemblance to a diminutive look-alike of country singer Willie Nelson, red bandana and all, five other men, the shortest of whom was 5'11 tall, and a red Coca-Cola machine. Defendant was the only person in the lineup who had red hair and who was wearing a red bandana as a headband. At the motion to suppress hearing, Mrs. Hayden was asked if defendant was the only person in the lineup with red hair. Her reply was, "I didn't notice the other ones because when I saw him, I knew it was him."

In case you missed it, or tend to skip over block-quoted text, the police in State v. Kiplinger (591 S.W.2d 207 (Mo.App. S.D. 1979)) used a Coke machine as a filler in a lineup, presumably to minimize the extent to which a red-headed suspect -- wearing a red bandana -- stood out from other members of the lineup. Further to that end, the police included five other men 5'11" or taller, to draw attention away from the 5'4" miniature Willie Nelson lookalike.

But the most astonishing thing about this case is not the lineup itself, nor is it the egregious police negligence, incompetence, and general disregard for the rights of the accused. The most astonishing thing about this case is the fact that the appellate court held that the lineup did not run afoul of due process.

This case is a stark illustration of the failure of the Manson v. Brathwaite due process standard for the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence. The Supreme Court in Manson told us that "reliability is the linchpin" in the admissibility analysis for eyewitness evidence, which on its face doesn't sound all bad. When there is a suggestive procedure, courts should look to other "indicia of reliability" -- the classic factors, including the witness's opportunity to view the perpetrator, the accuracy of the prior description, and (science notwithstanding) the confidence of the witness.

But the Manson court didn't stop there. The Supreme Court held that against those "indicia of reliability" should be weighed "the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself." Which is to say, the presence of suggestive procedures was not intended to be relegated only to the first prong of the analysis, as a threshold requirement to be met prior to engaging in a reliability analysis. Rather, the corrupting effect of the suggestive procedure itself was intended to be carried over into the second step of the analysis, for a determination as to whether or not the "indicia of reliability" outweigh that effect. In a case like the one quoted above, at best it should be impossible to extract any indication of independent reliability from a procedure so corrupting, such that the corrupting effect should easily be found to win the day.

But instead, that court -- and nearly all courts since -- managed to omit a fundamental step of the analysis set forth in Manson, namely that the corrupting effect of the procedure itself should be considered in determining the overall reliability of the identification evidence. The unfortunate reality is that Manson has been interpreted to mean, in direct contradiction to the clear language of the decision, that if the circumstances surrounding the original viewing of the perpetrator are found to be sufficiently reliable, even the most egregiously suggestive procedure will be excused and overlooked.

The result is that courts allow eyewitness evidence in front of juries from procedures that they themselves liken to a Saturday Night Live skit. I'm not sure that the Comedy is the right literary vehicle for the story of wrongful conviction.

(Thanks to occasional fellow-blogger Zeke for digging up this case.)

Read more :: Permalink

Stress Effects on Eyewitness Recall

It's a recurring theme in eyewitness testimony: "My adrenaline was racing, so I'll never forget that face." Or, "I was terrified; his face is burned in my mind." As if fear is a veritable steroid for memory. Witness after witness reports the belief that there is a positive correlation between the level of stress of an event and the level of detail at which the witness recalls the identity of the perpetrator, as if the presence of stress heightens the witness's attention and, in turn, her ability to recall details later. A poll of potential jurors (PDF) conducted by the Public Defender Service for DC confirmed the prevalence of this commonly held belief.

It turns out that the opposite is true (DOC), but courts continue to consider evidence of stress in their analysis of the reliability of eyewitness identifications, as a factor that heightens reliability, rather than diminishes it. As one stark example, just last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts handed down this decision (PDF) in U.S. v. Loren Harty, in a firearm possession case.

In applying the Manson due process analysis for the reliability of an eyewitness ID, the court first considered the suggestivity of the identification procedure -- in that case, a field show-up. On that prong, it found "[t]hat elements of suggestiveness infected the showup in Harty’s case" to be "beyond doubt." Indeed, observed the court, "[t]he manner in which Harty was displayed beside the police cruiser braced between two uniformed officers would have made it clear to any reasonable witness that the police were convinced that they had their man." But on to the so-called "reliability factors," under Manson v. Brathwaite. In considering the witness's "opportunity to view," the court considered that the witness had been chased into a building, that the assailant had fired shots into the floor as the witness ran up the stairs and threatened to kill the witness. And how did this weigh on the reliability of the ID that sprung from this series of events? Astonishingly, the court found that "These are events that tend to focus a witness’s attention." (!)

Study after study (DOC) has confirmed a negative correlation between stress and the accuracy of eyewitness recall. That is, the more stress undergone by a witness at the time of an event, the lower her ability to recall the details of that event -- including the identity of the perpetrator.

One striking example of this negative correlation is worth bearing out in some detail. In a 2004 study by Charles Morgan, et al., researchers used a military "survival training" scenario to test the correlation between stress and accuracy of recall. Morgan et al., Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress, Int'l J. of L. and Psych., 27, 265-279. The test subjects were active-duty military personnel, with an average age of 25 and average length of service of 4 years.

Each subject underwent both stressful and non-stressful interrogation room scenarios, after which the subject's ability to recall the identity of the interrogator was tested through various methods. In the stressful scenario, subjects were confronted face-to-face with an interrogator, in a well-lit room, for a full 40 minutes. When asked to select that interrogator that the subject had faced for 40 minutes in a small, well-lit room, only 34% were able to correctly identify that same interrogator from a photo lineup -- compared to 76% who were subjected to a similar, but low-stress scenario. Further, (in a different sample) 68% of the high-stress subjects selected someone other than the interrogator from the photo lineup, compared to only 12% in the low-stress scenario.

This study puts a pretty fine point on the effects of stress on eyewitness recall. If witnesses subjected to a 40-minute long interrogation session, in the most ideal, controlled viewing conditions can only accurately identify an interrogator 34% of the time, and similarly make a false identification 68% of the time, it seems abundantly clear that -- at the very least -- courts are going astray when they consider gunshots and homicidal threats as "events that tend to focus a witness's attention." These are events with a strong tendency to do quite the opposite, and the science is in on this one.

From the same paper, this sums it up:

Contrary to the popular conception that most people would never forget the face of a clearly seen individual who had physically confronted them and threatened them for more than 30 min, a large number of subjects in this study were unable to correctly identify their perpetrator. These data provide robust evidence that eyewitness memory for persons encountered during events that are personally relevant, highly stressful, and realistic in nature may be subject to substantial error.

Read more :: Permalink