One of the most tangible impacts that psychological research has had in the courtroom over the past several decades is in the area of eyewitness identification. Empirical research shows that while eyewitness identification is highly persuasive when introduced in the courtroom, it is also frequently mistaken (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 3, No. 2–3, 1997). In fact, it has been observed that incorrect identification is responsible for more wrongful convictions—where post-conviction DNA evidence later proved innocence—than all other sources of error combined (Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2006).
Some states and individual law enforcement agencies have adopted procedures that seek to minimize contamination of initial eyewitness identifications and to evaluate those identifications, once made, using empirically supported criteria. A recent case decided by the Michigan Supreme Court suggests that the legal system continues the trend of recognizing the perils of eyewitness identification.
In the case of People v. Thomas (2017), the victim had been robbed and shot by a man wearing a hood whose face the victim reported he saw for six or seven seconds. A police officer investigating the crime stopped Elisah Thomas based on a radio description of the assailant. Finding no reason to detain Thomas, the officer nevertheless took a photo of him with a cellphone camera. The officer then showed the picture to the victim in his hospital bed, and asked, "Was this the guy who shot you?" Even though Thomas did not match the description the victim had given to police at the scene of the attack, he immediately identified the man in the photo as his attacker. As a result, police charged Thomas with the crime based upon the result of the single-photo lineup.
The trial court threw out the identification as having been made through an impermissibly suggestive procedure, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed that decision. In the appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, APA argued in its amicus brief and in oral argument before the appellate court that not only is eyewitness identification prone to error, but single-suspect lineups, in particular, are inherently suggestive and unreliable. (To read APA's amicus brief, visit www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/thomas-2017.) The court agreed, finding that the identification procedure that used a single photograph accompanied by the question "Was this the guy who shot you?" was "highly suggestive."
Because impermissibly suggestive identification procedures give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification, this constituted a violation of due process. In a somewhat unusual step—which might be interpreted to suggest the court found the empirical scientific evidence conclusive—the Supreme Court did not remand the case to the Court of Appeals, but dismissed the charges against the defendant outright.
References: Devenport, J.L., Penrod, S.D., & Cutler, B.L. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluation commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3 (2–3), 338–361. Wells, G.L. (2006). Eyewitness identification: Systemic reforms. Wisconsin Law Review , 2006 (2), 615–644.
"Judicial Notebook" is a project of APA Div. 9 (Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues).
