Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

the information that is collected is usually accurate. This

is especially the case when witnesses are simply asked

to describe the assailant without any prompts from the

investigator. The key question is whether description

accuracy and length of description correlate with eye-

witness identification accuracy. It could be assumed that

witnesses who give more complete and detailed descrip-

tions of the culprit would be more accurate in their iden-

tification. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has employed

the witness description accuracy as an indicator of

the witness’s reliability. However, it has generally been

found that the quality and quantity of the witness

descriptions are not related to identification accuracy.

Not only do witness descriptions poorly predict

accurate identifications, but they may also in fact

harm later identification accuracy. This is what hap-

pens in the case of verbal overshadowing. Verbal

overshadowing refers to the impairment in lineup

identification accuracy when the witness is asked

to describe the suspect’s face prior to the lineup

administration. Although witness descriptions and

identifications are weakly correlated, two factors are

inconsistent with this finding. First, witnesses who are

particularly adept at describing faces are likely to ben-

efit from the description. Second, the correlation

between witness description and identification accu-

racy is improved when the culprit’s face is especially

easy to describe, such as when there is a tattoo on the

face or a facial disfigurement.

One estimator variable that is thought to be predic-

tive of identification accuracy is the speed of the iden-

tification. The rationale is that witnesses with a good

view of the culprit and a vivid memory of the crime

should identify the witness quickly and without hesi-

tation. For the most part, the research on speed of

identification has been consistent with this logic.

Furthermore, it has been noted that witnesses who

indicate that the face “popped out” at them when

viewing the lineup tend to be more accurate in their

identification than witnesses who indicated that they

had to take more time to make their decisions. Thus,

there is a strong relationship between accuracy and

speed of identification, with faster identification

resulting in more accurate identification.

Eyewitnesses in the Courtroom

Considerable research has addressed how jurors evalu-

ate eyewitness memory and whether their evaluations

can be improved. Using trial simulation methods,

research demonstrates that jurors are often insensitive

to the factors that are known to influence eyewitness

memory: stress experienced by the witness, weapon

focus, and the influence of suggestive identification

procedures. Furthermore, jurors tend to rely on factors

that are known not to strongly predict identification

accuracy. Witness confidence, for example, has a

strong impact on jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness

identifications. In these studies, highly confident

witnesses are persuasive, and jurors tend to convict

perpetrators on the basis of testimony by highly

confident witnesses.

The apparent inability of jurors to evaluate eyewit-

ness identification procedures in a manner consistent

with the research on eyewitness identification has led

some psychologists to conclude that knowledgeable

psychologists should testify in court as expert wit-

nesses. The purpose of the expert testimony is not

to make a judgment as to the accuracy of the identifi-

cation but rather to provide all the relevant informa-

tion so that the jury can make an informed decision

when assessing the reliability of the witness. Not all

those in the legal system agree on the efficacy or use

of eyewitness testimony during trials. Some argue that

the testimony may bias the witness; others indicate

that the testimony is superfluous because issues of

memory are of common knowledge (a conclusion that

is inconsistent with research findings). Although there

has been research investigating the impact of expert

testimony on factors that influence eyewitness accu-

racy, the results are mixed with respect to its impact

on jurors.

Jeffrey S. Neuschatz and Deah S. Lawson

See also Estimator and System Variables in Eyewitness

Identification; Expert Psychological Testimony on

Eyewitness Identification; Identification Tests, Best

Practices in; Juries and Eyewitnesses

Further Readings

Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2005). Eyewitness

identification. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.),

Psychology and law: An empirical perspective

(pp. 177–221). New York: Guilford Press.

Lindsay, R., Ross, D., Read, J., & Toglia, M. (Eds.). (2007).

The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol. 2. Memory

for people. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Neuschatz, J. S., & Cutler, B. L (in press). Eyewitness

identification. In H. L. Roediger (Ed.),Learning and

298 ———Eyewitness Memory

E-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 298