Expert Witness Report - SCORED 58. PDF

Preview

Summary

SCORED 58....

Description

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 Expert Witness Report

Introduction: The information provided outlines that your client, a 25-year-old Black male, has been accused of an attack with a tennis racket which caused serious injury. This incident came to the attention of a witness, a 60-year-old Caucasian male, after hearing raised voices. The following report will discuss the potential impact of the Weapon-Focus Effect, Own-Age Bias, Own-Race Bias, Offender Disguise and Unconscious Transference in relation to this case. From the presence of these issues it is possible to conclude that the witness is not reliable, however there are many other factors which could contribute to the validity of their statement.

Main Body: Issue: Weapon-Focus Effect Fact: The weapon was a tennis racket Opinion: The weapon focus effect refers to the attention given to a weapon throughout the course of a crime. It has been suggested that this attention is diverted from the offender and therefore impairs the witness’s ability to later recall details about the offender (Semmler, Dunn, Mickes & Wixted, 2018). One explanation attributed to this phenomenon is arousal hypothesis (Easterbrook, 1959). This theory suggests that the presence of a weapon induces emotion/arousal which thereby narrows the viewers’ attention to focus on the weapon as it is seen as the most central cue in the given environment. This may be due to the threatening nature of the weapon. Given that the weapon in this case was a tennis racket, this hypothesis may not be applicable since a tennis racket is not usually perceived as a threat (unless, perhaps it had been modified in a way which would cause significantly more harm). Furthermore, a meta-analysis

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 revealed that greater effect sizes were found in studies that utilised stimuli that presented a greater possibility or harm or death (Steblay, 1992). This further indicates that the presence of a tennis racket may not have altered the way in which the witness reports the crime. An alternative theory to explain the weapon-focus effect is the influence of context (Pickel, 1999). It has been found that witnesses provide less accurate descriptions of targets when an unusual object is present. Pickel (1999) experimented with both threatening objects and unusual objects and found that threat manipulation had no effect. This evidence suggests that a witness may focus on the weapon due to its unusualness in the given context. In the present case, it is not possible to conclude whether a tennis racket would be considered unusual due to the lack of information provided about the whereabouts of the incident. With consideration of the information provided, it is possible to suggest that the WeaponFocus Effect may have had a negative impact on the way in which the witness perceived and/or recalls the crime. Therefore, this provides reason to doubt the reliability of their statement. However, this effect may be minimal due to the lack of context-specific information.

Issue: Own-Age Bias Fact: There is a 35-year age gap between the witness and the suspect Opinion: There is a multitude of research supporting the hypothesis that recognition memory is more accurate for in-group rather than out-group faces. An example of this is own-age bias (Rhodes & Anastasi, 2012). Wright & Stroud (2002) conducted an experiment to explore the accuracy of eye-witness identification when the suspect is a similar age to the viewer. The researchers used a simultaneous photo line-up and gave unbiased instructions when asking the participants to identify the perpetrator. Their

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 results showed that when young suspects and fillers were used, the younger participants performed better than the older participants. However, when older suspects and fillers were used, the younger participants did not demonstrate greater accuracy. These results support the Own-Age Bias; however, research has shown that sequential line-ups produce more accuracy in eye-witness identification (Lindsay & Wells, 1985). A further experiment tested the Own-Age Bias using a sequential video line-up, which is ecologically valid as it is used by UK police. In this research, the group of younger adults made more correct identifications and correct rejections when the line-up consisted of similar age faces. The older group of participants performed equally for both own-age and other ages faces, showing no Own-Age Bias. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that the younger group of participants were significantly more accurate overall than the older group (Havard & Memon, 2009). The difference in results in the two experiments may be explained by the difference in line-up procedure. Another possible explanation could be that in the former research, the older group of participants were aged between 40-55 years, whereas in the latter, they were aged between 61-83. This information may be relevant as it indicates that Own-Age Bias is particularly strong in younger adults, but significantly reduces with age. In the present case, this conclusion may suggest that the witness is beyond the age where Own-Age Bias is most prevalent. However, the general decline in accuracy with age of eye-witnesses may be relevant. Searcy, Bartlett & Memon (1999) found that older participants, aged between 60-80, were significantly less accurate in correctly choosing the perpetrator from a line-up. The evidence provided demonstrates that an Own-Age Bias is more likely to occur in younger individuals, and therefore the chance of this bias being present in the current case is minimal. However, there is substantial evidence to suggest that memory declines significantly

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 with age and therefore the witness in this case may not be able to accurately select the perpetrator from a line-up.

Issue: Own-Race Bias Fact: The suspect is Black and the witness is Caucasian Opinion: A second example of in-group bias is that of the cross-race effect/ORB, whereby evidence suggests that same-race faces are identified more accurately than cross-race faces (Wilson, Hugenberg & Bernstein, 2013). Evidence of this bias has been presented by Bothwell, Brigham & Malpass (1989). In this research it was found that an Own-Race Bias was present in 79% of the Black and Caucasian samples. This research strongly indicates that there would be an Own-Race Bias in the present case. One explanation put forward to account for this bias is the lack of expertise with different race faces. It has been suggested that the Own-Race Bias stems from general racial segregation, even in countries such as the UK & US where the population is multicultural. This racial segregation leads to most people having significantly more contact with same-race faces than cross-race faces (Wilson, Hugenberg & Bergstein, 2013). With this information, it is possible to assume that in some contexts where races are profoundly integrated, the Own-Race Bias may be less prevalent. Brigham, Maass, Snyder & Spaulding (1982) conducted research in a field setting in Florida where the population is multicultural. An unusual interaction was staged with a store clerk, and two hours later a ‘law intern’ asked the clerk to identify the customer from a photo line-up. There was no evidence of Own-Race Bias in either Black or Caucasian participants, which supports the expertise hypothesis. Due to the lack of contextual information, it is difficult to predict whether there would be an Own-Race

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 Bias caused by lack of expertise in the present case. However, another explanation for the Own-Race Bias may give more reason to suspect its presence in this case. The second theory is focused around basic cognitive processing. This suggests that in order to cope with cognitive load, people develop categories such as schemas and stereotypes to understand the world. For example, categorising an animal as a dog allows one to expect barking and a wagging tail. This categorisation is highly beneficial, however in some cases it may hinder memory and recognition. In the case of cross-race recognition, it is suggested that categorisation can make faces from the same category seem to blend together (Wilson et al, 2013). Given this explanation, it is likely that the Own-Race Bias is present in the current case. The degree to which this occurs may be influenced by the amount of exposure the witness has had to Black people. As stated previously, the expertise hypothesis suggests that less exposure to other races can result in a stronger bias. Furthermore, it is suggested that where crossrace is less common, stronger categorisation occurs which can result in weaker recognition. Thus, the witness’s exposure to Black people is likely to have a significant effect on their ability to identify the offender.

Issue: Offender Disguise Fact: The witness recalls the offender wearing sunglasses Opinion: Evidence suggests that when an offender wears a disguise, such as sunglasses, it negatively affects the accuracy of eyewitness identification (Mansour, Beaudry, Bertrand, Kalmet, Melsom & Lindsay, 2012). One study that demonstrates the impact of offender disguises is by Cutler, Penrod & Martens (1987). In this study, participants are asked to watch a videotaped robbery in which the offender is either wearing a disguise (a hat) or not. Results demonstrate that the impact of this disguise

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 significantly reduces identification accuracy. A further study investigated the effects of disguise with additional conditions; no disguise, wore a hat, wore sunglasses and wore both. As one may expect, the condition in which the offender wore both a hat and sunglasses produced the most inaccuracy in witness identification. Moreover, it was found that the sunglasses were more disruptive to recognition than was the hat. One explanation for this result is that people may expect hair to change regularly whether this be due to changing of hairstyles or due to wind/rain disruption, whereas eyes remain consistent (Mansour et al, 2012). Research implies that faces are processed holistically, rather than a sum of the features. This means that facial features are processed in conjunction with each other, by means of distance and relative sizes. (Wells & Hryciw, 1984). This may give an explanation as to why the sunglasses caused more disturbance in recognition than the hat. Wearing sunglasses would significantly reduce the amount of facial information available to the witness, whereas a hat may only disturb additional information like hairstyle. Moreover, eyetracking research has demonstrated that the eyes are the primary focus point when processing a face (Vinette, Gosselin & Schyns, 2004). With this information, it is highly likely that the witness in the present case would have difficulty correctly identifying the offender. Further research has demonstrated that replication of distinctive features in all line-up members produces more correct identifications than concealment of distinctive features (Zarkadi, Wade & Stewart, 2009). This research implies that if all line-up members wore sunglasses, the offender may be easier to identify. If all features are processed relative to each other, the sunglasses may also be processed relatively. It is worth noting that in Mansour et al (2012), the line-up members wore no disguise. One particular issue with this theory is that there are many different styles of sunglasses, each style and size cover different amounts of the face,

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 making it almost impossible to accurately replicate what the witness saw. The information provided implies that the eyewitness in this case may provide inaccurate information. Although, if all line-up members wore sunglasses similar to those described, the witness may be able to identify the offender more accurately.

Issue: Unconscious Transference Fact: The witness recalls a group of people Opinion: Unconscious transference occurs when an eyewitness confuses an innocent but familiar individual as the offender. This can occur during a police line-up if a familiar face is present (Ross, Ceci, Dunning & Toglia, 1994). Research shows that recognition of a familiar face is much stronger than the capacity to recall the circumstances in which the face has been seen (Deffenbacher, Bornstein & Penrod, 2006). Moreover, research into age differences in unconscious transference shows that there is a significant increase in source confusions and incorrect identifications with older age (Perfect & Harris, 2003). This information strongly suggests that the reliability of the witness in the present case is questionable. The witness may be susceptible to identifying one of the innocent members of the group as the offender due to the familiarity of the face.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the evidence suggests that the witness may have been negatively affected by the following issues; Own-Age Bias, Own-Race Bias, Weapon Focus Effect, Offender Disguise & Unconscious Transference. The degree to which ORB and WFE may have affected the witness is unclear due to the lack of contextual information, however, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that this would have affected reliability. Further information is required to fully assess the reliability of the witness. For example, the distance at which the

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 witness viewed the crime (Lampinen, Erickson, Moore & Hittson, 2014), lighting conditions (Narby, Cutler & Penrod, 1996) and stress levels of the witness (Morgan et al, 2004). Moreover, information about the victim of the crime may be useful. It is possible that if the victim were a child, the attention from the witness may have been focused on the victim. However, if the victim had similar characteristics to the offender (e.g. age, race, build), the attention may not have been distracted.

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 References:

Bothwell, R. K., Brigham, J. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1989). Cross-racial identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(1), 19-25.

Brigham, J. C., Maass, A., Snyder, L. D., & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness identification in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 673.

Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Putting context into context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 629.

Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30(3), 287-307.

Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behaviour. Psychological review, 66(3), 183.

Havard, C., & Memon, A. (2009). The influence of face age on identification from a video line-up: A comparison between older and younger adults. Memory, 17(8), 847-859.

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 Lampinen, J. M., Erickson, W. B., Moore, K. N., & Hittson, A. (2014). Effects of distance on face recognition: Implications for eyewitness identification. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 21(6), 1489-1494.

Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Bertrand, M. I., Kalmet, N., Melsom, E. I., & Lindsay, R. C. (2012). Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and human behavior, 36(6), 513.

Morgan III, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. M. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International journal of law and psychiatry, 27(3), 265-279.

Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1996). The effects of witness, target, and situational factors on eyewitness identifications.

Perfect, T. J., & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or identity blending?. Memory & cognition, 31(4), 570-580.

Pickel, K. L. (1999). The influence of context on the “weapon focus” effect. Law and Human Behavior, 23(3), 299-311.

Rhodes, M. G., & Anastasi, J. S. (2012). The own-age bias in face recognition: a metaanalytic and theoretical review. Psychological bulletin, 138(1), 146.

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 Ross, D. R., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 918.

Searcy, J. H., Bartlett, J. C., & Memon, A. (1999). Age differences in accuracy and choosing in eyewitness identification and face recognition. Memory & cognition, 27(3), 538552.

Semmler, C., Dunn, J., Mickes, L., & Wixted, J. T. (2018). The role of estimator variables in eyewitness identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(3), 400.

Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16(4), 413-424.

Vinette, C., Gosselin, F., & Schyns, P. G. (2004). Spatio‐ temporal dynamics of face recognition in a flash: It's in the eyes. Cognitive science, 28(2), 289-301.

Wells, G. L., & Hryciw, B. (1984). Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations. Memory & Cognition, 12(4), 338-344.

Wilson, J. P., Hugenberg, K., & Bernstein, M. J. (2013). The Cross‐ Race Effect and Eyewitness Identification: How to Improve Recognition and Reduce Decision Errors in Eyewitness Situations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7(1), 83-113.

Poppy Ashcroft 23907053 Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (2002). Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: People are better with their own age. Law and human behavior, 26(6), 641-654.

Zarkadi, T., Wade, K. A., & Stewart, N. (2009). Creating fair lineups for suspects with distinctive features. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1448-1453....