Amicus brief in support of admitting expert testimony on the science of false memories in a child sexual abuse prosecution
Pgs. 7-8 – summarize scientific research describing how people create entirely false memories, a study of false memory creation, and a list of false memory risk factors, particularly for children. Pgs. 9-10 – explain how interview techniques can create false memories in children, even false memories that do not seem to directly relate to the […]
This expert report collects and describes cutting edge social science describing the problems with eyewitness identifications including: the effects of poor lighting and distance (p. 5); the effects of a quick exposure and the problem of witnesses’ overestimating the length of exposure (p. 5-6); problems with cross-racial identifications (p. 6); problem if witness previously viewed […]
Argument that using in-court IDs as the only identification in case is a violation of the Due Process Clause because they create a substantial risk of misidentification. Social science studies cited throughout, specifically supporting reliability concerns (pgs. 10-12) and policy arguments (pgs. 13-15)
Witness testifies about confirmation bias, clothing bias, witness degree of certainty, police witness accuracy, and face-to-photo ID accuracy
p. 9-18 overview studies on unreliability of cross-racial identifications and juror tendency to overestimate eyewitness accuracy. Brief also details why expert testimony and cross-examination do not eliminate the need for a jury instruction.
Incorporates numerous studies demonstrating why show ups are unreliable
Amicus Brief – American Psychological Association – In Support of Evidence Based Jury Instructions on Eyewitness Identification
Brief outlines the factors that have been demonstrated to impact the reliability of eyewitness identification and argues for jury instructions that explain each individual factor.
Argues that showing a witness a photograph of the defendant prior to trial testimony shares the same unreliability as a show-up and is impermissibly suggestive.
In-court identifications are inherently suggestive because they imply to the witness that the prosecutor has confirmed the witness’ initial identification. This brief argues that such an identification is more suggestive than a show-up and that the witness’ sense of accuracy artificially increases during subsequent identifications.
Because of the inherently suggestive nature of in-court identifications, courts should (1) subject them to the same protections and scrutiny as suggestive pretrial identification procedures (pgs. 4-9 of brief); (2) update existing standards and law to align with social science and other, more protective jurisdictions (pgs. 13-22 of brief); and (3) recognize that in-court identifications […]