Kirsten Dauphinais on Eyewitness Identification
Professor Kirsten Dauphinais discusses issues related to errors in eyewitness identification. The interview includes a discussion of the recent ruling in Perry v. New Hampshire by the United States Supreme Court, decided January 11, 2012. (pdf of slip opinion)
California Public Radio Interview
On August 26, 2011, Professor Kirsten Dauphinais was interviewed on the radio talk show "AirTalk with Larry Mantle" on 90.3 KPCV, Southern California Public Radio, which is the Los Angeles affiliate of National Public Radio. The episode was entitled "That's the guy who did it! . . . I think?" and it concerned erroneous eyewitness identification and Perry v. New Hampshire, a case on that subject that will be heard by the United States Supreme Court in November.
Professor Dauphinais has published and lectured on the serious problems erroneous eyewitness identifications pose to our criminal justice system and what measures might be taken to improve the problem.
Download interview in mp3 format.
That's the guy who did it!...I think?
For the first time in three decades, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider changing how eyewitness evidence is treated by law enforcement and the courts. Each year, more than 25,000 eyewitnesses wrongfully identify suspects in criminal investigations. That has led to thousands of suspects who have been wrongfully convicted. A plethora of research illustrating eyewitness error has poured in from academia over the last 20 years. Still, the courts have yet to put the new knowledge into practice. In fact, judges, lawyers and jurors give more weight to eyewitness testimony than other trial evidence. In 1981, Justice William Brennan quoted a leading study that said there is nothing more powerful "than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says, 'That's the one!'" Those words are backed up by numerous studies illuminating the significant sway eyewitness testimony holds over jurors. Still, researchers contend that the testimony – in all its power – is highly unreliable, especially when one witnesses a crime that occurred quickly. So what kind of witness IDs warrant a closer look by judge and jury?
The Court will weigh that soon in Perry v. New Hampshire. How should police treat eyewitnesses right after a crime has occurred? What about when they're looking at a line-up? Of course, some eyewitness testimonies are completely accurate, so how should such evidence be weighed at trial? What type of ruling from SCOTUS could clear this up in practice? Why aren't judges doing it already?
Guests:
Kirsten Dauphinais, Associate Professor of Law at University of North Dakota
Kathy Pezdek, Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate School; Head of the Cognitive Psychology Specialization
The link to the show: http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/08/26/20442/eyewitness-id/