Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

of theBiggerscriteria for making its decision: the wit-

ness was confident, he had a good look at the suspect,

and the identification took place shortly after the inci-

dent. The defendant was convicted of assault and pos-

session of a firearm; he appealed on several grounds,

including that the trial judge erred in denying the

motion to suppress, but the appellate court affirmed the

trial court’s decision. Neither the trial nor appellate

courts recognized that the suggestive identification

procedure, perhaps in concert with other factors, can

easily distort eyewitnesses’ estimates of their opportu-

nity to view the perpetrator, their confidence in their

identification, and their estimate of their “degree of

attention” at the time of encoding.

In addition to the obvious calls for eliminating any

suggestive aspects of lineup identification procedures

and adopting best practices for identification tests, Gary

Wells recommends a series of alternatives that would

remedy the problems created by Manson.One of these

proposed remedies is to shift the burden of proof in sit-

uations where the lineup procedure was suggestive so

that the prosecutor would have to demonstrate why the

identification should be allowed. This is a simple and

reasonable solution to this problem. Should this recom-

mendation be implemented in the future, the decision-

making process of judges considering a motion to

suppress the lineup identification would change.

Veronica Stinson

See alsoConfidence in Identifications; Confidence in

Identifications, Malleability; Exposure Time and

Eyewitness Memory; Eyewitness Descriptions, Accuracy

of; Eyewitness Memory; Identification Tests, Best

Practices in; Instructions to the Witness; Neil v. Biggers

Criteria for Evaluating Eyewitness Identification; Presence

of Counsel Safeguard and Eyewitness Identification;

Showups; Wrongful Conviction

Further Readings

Kirby v. Illinois,406 U.S. 682 (1972).

Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977).

Neil v. Biggers,409 U.S. 188 (1972).

O’Toole, T. P., & Shay, G. (2006). Manson v. Brathwaite

revisited: Towards a new rule of decision for due process

challenges to eyewitness identification procedures.

Valparaiso University Law Review, 41,109–148.

Simmons v. United States,390 U.S. 377, 385 (1968).

State v. Thompson,81 Conn. App. 264 (2004).

Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A.

(1997). How effective is the motion-to-suppress

safeguard? Judges’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and

fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 82,211–220.

United States v. Ash,413 U.S. 300 (1973).

Wells, G. L. (2007). What is wrong with the Manson v.

Braithwaitetest of eyewitness identification accuracy?

Retrieved February 22, 2007, from

http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/FACULTY/gwells/

Mansonproblem.pdf

Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know

and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 18,427–443.

MUGSHOTS

In cases where a criminal’s identity is unknown to an

eyewitness and investigators have not yet pinpointed a

suspect, witnesses may be asked to search through a

large number of photographs for a picture of the crim-

inal. This process is known as a mug shot search

because the photographs typically come from a data-

base of photographs of arrested people (either comput-

erized or from a file drawer system). Researchers have

examined whether viewing hundreds of photographs in

search for a criminal may have detrimental effects on a

witness’s memory of the criminal or later identification

accuracy. Specifically, researchers have focused on

three potential effects: interference, unconscious trans-

ference, and commitment. Regardless of the effect, one

caveat with this body of research to date is that it has

not yet been tested with real-world witnesses in real

criminal cases.

Interference

Interference, in mug shot research, is when postcrime

information, in the form of viewing many new faces,

weakens or interferes with the witness’s memory of the

actual criminal. Interference is most commonly tested

in research laboratories by exposing two groups of par-

ticipants to a mock crime, asking one group to look

through mug shot photographs and then asking both

groups of witnesses to make an identification of the

criminal from a six-person lineup. Researchers also

manipulate whether or not the mock criminal’s photo-

graph is present in the lineup to test whether or not wit-

nesses who viewed the mug shots are more likely to

choose an innocent person when the actual target is not

present. Although it is reasonable to assume that the

process of viewing hundreds of faces in search for a

Mug Shots——— 521

M-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 521