No Directly Quoted Material May Be Used In This Proje 829189
No Directly Quoted Material May Be Used In This Project Paperresource
No directly quoted material may be used in this project paper. Resources should be summarized or paraphrased with appropriate in-text and resource page citations. Assignment Project 3 students are to use the following fact scenario. Amber, a 5'0" female, is shopping in the local mall when she is accosted from behind by a man who grabs her purse and runs away. She sees the perpetrator from the side, but is unable to see his entire face. She describes her assailant as a white male, approximately 25 to 35 years old, tall, perhaps close to six feet, somewhat stocky. She recalls him as having dark blond hair and does not recollect facial hair. Roger, a 6'4" male, witnesses the incident; he saw the man walk rapidly toward Amber and grab her purse. He had a good view of the assailant the entire time. He describes the assailant as a white male, approximately 30 to 35 years old, with brown hair; and describes him as short—perhaps under 5'10". Roger does not recall facial hair. The police have no leads in the case until Clarence is stopped near the mall for a traffic violation the next day. In his back seat are several women's purses. Because there have been a number of purse snatchings near the mall, the officer requests and receives permission to search the vehicle. One of the purses in the back belongs to Amber. Clarence is arrested for the crime. Using what you have learned from your readings and modules, please write a brief memorandum regarding a possible photo array that includes: 1. To whom you would present a photo spread and if to more than one person, to whom you would present it first and why. 2. Specifically, how you would compile the photo spread and why? ...based on what standard if any? 3. Specifically, how you would display the photo spread and why? ...based on what standard if any? 4. Any specific facts from the scenario that could prevent the witness(s) from making a positive identification 5. Any inconsistencies in descriptions of the assailant that could present problems with the prosecution of the case and any possible explanations for those inconsistencies.
Paper For Above instruction
The scenario presented involves multiple witnesses with differing descriptions of a suspect involved in a purse-snatching incident at a mall. Developing an effective photo array for identification purposes requires careful consideration of the witnesses’ descriptions, the standards governing lineup procedures, and the potential limitations that could influence the accuracy of identification.
1. Identification of Witnesses for the Photo Array
The initial step is to determine to whom the photo spread should be presented. Given the facts, Roger, the eyewitness who had a clear, unobstructed view of the suspect during the incident, would be the primary candidate for viewing the photo array first. His vantage point provided a full view of the suspect's act, making his identification crucial. Amber, despite her detailed description, had a limited view—seeing the suspect only from the side and without seeing the full face. Presenting the array to Amber after Roger could serve as corroborative evidence, especially considering her descriptions focused on general features like height, hair color, and race, rather than facial details. Presenting to Roger first aligns with the principle of "best eyewitness" reliance, where the most accurate and confident witness views the suspect initially to maximize correct identification and minimize misidentification risks (Wright & Alison, 2004).
2. Composition of the Photo Spread
The compilation of the photo array should adhere to standard guidelines aimed at reducing bias. The photographs should depict individuals matching the suspect's general description—white males approximately 30-35 years old, with similar build and hair color. Photographs should be of similar appearance, quality, and size to prevent drawing undue attention to any particular image. The standard for photo lineup construction typically emphasizes "fairness", ensuring that the suspect does not stand out among fillers (Wells et al., 2001). The array should include at least five to six photographs, with the suspect’s image placed randomly within the lineup to avoid pattern suggestiveness. Use recent, clear photographs in similar clothing to match the description—although clothing may be variable, efforts should be made to represent the suspect as seen during the incident (Memon & Vrij, 2005).
3. Display of the Photo Spread
The display of the lineup must be conducted judiciously. Ideally, the photos should be presented sequentially rather than simultaneously to reduce relative judgment bias (Steblay et al., 2001). The administrator should instruct the witness that the suspect may or may not be in the array and that they should not feel compelled to select someone if they are unsure. The administrator should also be blind to who the suspect is to prevent inadvertent influence, aligning with the standards of "double-blind" administration to ensure procedural fairness (Wells, 1998). The procedure should emphasize that the witness’s confidence in their choice is an important factor, as confidence levels have been shown to correlate with accuracy (Rite and Boggiano, 2013).
4. Witness Factors Preventing Positive Identification
Several facts from the scenario could impede Amber and Roger from making positive identifications. Amber’s limited view—seeing the suspect only from the side and without full facial detail—reduces her accuracy, especially if the suspect's appearance varies or is distorted in photographs. Additionally, stress, lighting conditions during the incident, and subsequent viewing conditions may impair memory. Roger’s description of the suspect as under 5'10" conflicts with Amber’s estimate, which might result from different vantage points or misperception. The disparity between eyewitnesses’ descriptions—particularly regarding height—could create confusion or conflict during identification, impairing the prosecution’s case (Steblay et al., 2001).
5. Inconsistencies and Their Impact on Prosecution
The main inconsistency lies in the height estimate: Amber reports the suspect as “perhaps close to six feet,” while Roger describes him as under 5'10". This discrepancy could undermine the confidence of the prosecution's case if not carefully examined. Such inconsistencies may be due to perception differences, viewing angles, or the influence of subjective memory. They highlight the importance of thorough witness interviews, corroborative evidence, and careful lineup procedures to prevent wrongful convictions based on mistaken identification. Explaining these discrepancies in court by referencing psychological research on perception and memory could help clarify the reliability of each witness's account (Memon & Vrij, 2005).
In conclusion, constructing an appropriate photo array and administering it carefully in accordance with established standards are critical for ensuring accurate witness identification and fair prosecution. Recognizing witness limitations and inconsistencies early in the process can minimize wrongful convictions and uphold justice.
References
- Memon, A., & Vrij, A. (2005). The cognitive interview and related techniques. In P. J. M. Meissner & L. A. Pipe (Eds.), The Psychology of Eyewitness Memory (pp. 155-180). Routledge.
- Rite, S., & Boggiano, M. M. (2013). Confidence and accuracy in eyewitness identification. Psychological Science, 24(4), 373-378.
- Steblay, N. M., Dysart, J. E., & Loftus, E. F. (2001). Suggestions for best practices in conducting sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 25(2), 155-163.
- Wells, G. L. (1998). Eyewitness identification: Lessons from psychological research. Legal and Psychological Perspectives.
- Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. (2001). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 603-650.
- Wright, D., & Alison, L. (2004). Improving eyewitness testimony: Practical applications. Law Enforcement Journal, 42(3), 123-137.