the lineup. Furthermore, attorneys reported that they
would be unlikely to file a motion with the court to
suppress the identification when the lineup instructions
are biased. Research, however, has shown that judges
are more likely to grant a motion to suppress an iden-
tification when the lineup instructions are biased than
when they are unbiased. Finally, attorneys lacked
knowledge regarding the beneficial effects of sequen-
tially presented lineups, suggesting that they are
unable to effectively safeguard their clients from
presentation-biased lineup procedures.
Although this study would suggest that attorneys
are somewhat sensitive to factors influencing lineup
suggestiveness, the presence-of-counsel safeguard is
effective only if attorneys are actually present at their
client’s postindictment lineups. Surveys of attorneys
and police officers, however, suggest that defense
attorneys are rarely present at the construction or pre-
sentation of their clients’ identification tests. Thus, the
effectiveness of the presence-of-counsel safeguard
may be limited not only by attorney knowledge of and
sensitivity to factors influencing lineup suggestive-
ness but also by the absence of attorneys at their clients’
lineups.Jennifer L. DevenportSee alsoEyewitness Memory; Identification Tests, Best
Practices in; Instructions to the Witness; Lineup Filler
Selection; Lineup Size and Bias; Motions to Suppress
Eyewitness Identification; Simultaneous and Sequential
Lineup Presentation; Wrongful ConvictionFurther Readings
Brigham, J. D., & Wolskeil, M. P. (1983). Opinions of
attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy
of eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior,
7,337–349.
Potter, R., & Brewer, N. (1999). Perceptions of witness
behaviour-accuracy relationships held by police, lawyers
and mock-jurors. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law,
6,97–103.
Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A.
(1996). How effective is the presence-of-counsel
safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness,
fairness, and correctability of biased lineup procedures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,64–75.
Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A
national survey of U.S. police preparation and conduct of
identification lineups. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 10,69–82.PRESENTENCEEVALUATIONS
Presentence evaluations are those assessments con-
ducted prior to the sentencing stage of proceedings to
assist the court in making an appropriate disposition.
Individual differences in crimes, criminals, and cir-
cumstances justify the need for personalized sen-
tences in each case. Mental health professionals,
probation officers, and social workers are among
those in the forensic field called on to conduct these
assessments. This entry explores the importance of
presentence assessments, the content of such assess-
ments, and standards of practice in completing high-
quality assessments.
Historically, the goals of punishment were retribu-
tion, incapacitation, and general deterrence. These
objectives do not require in-depth knowledge of the
offender. However, with the aims of reform and reha-
bilitation came a need for further information regard-
ing the offender prior to imposing a sentence. Indeed,
some scholars have suggested that the sentencing
decision may be the most important decision made
about a defendant in the entire court process. It is now
common practice for the court to order the completion
of a presentence report to assist the court in making an
appropriate disposition. Probation officers are fre-
quently involved in the preparation of these reports;
however, if mental health issues arise, the mental
health professional may be called on to complete an
assessment at this stage. The ordering of such evalua-
tions varies in different jurisdictions, and consistent
criteria do not exist. Some information suggests that
judicial decisions to order assessments at this stage
may be influenced by the judge’s commitment to
rehabilitation or retribution.
Specific requests made by the court will dictate the
focus of these evaluations, and the content of reports
will vary depending on the needs of the court as well
as of practitioner called on to conduct the evaluation.
The specific role of the mental health professional
will be in providing information relating to culpabil-
ity, which would include aggravating and mitigating
factors in offending; risk assessment, such as risk
management strategies; and mental status and treata-
bility assessments, including identifying specific and
appropriate treatment needs of the offender and an
evaluation of the treatability of the offender. Indeed,
judges have requested that the examiner inform the
court why a particular recommendation is needed,614 ———Presentence EvaluationsP-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 614