ABSTRACT
The motion-to-suppress safeguard is designed to prevent false eyewitness identifications from leading to wrongful convictions. This safeguard is effective only if judges are sensitive to factors that influence lineup suggestiveness. The present study assessed judge sensitivity to foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Judges (N = 99) read a description of a hypothetical crime, perpetrator, and identification procedure followed by a motion to suppress the identification. Judges completed a questionnaire in which they ruled on the motion and rated the lineup's suggestiveness and fairness. Foil bias and instruction bias influenced judges' rulings and lineup evaluations as predicted. Hypotheses concerning presentation bias were not supported. These results suggest that judges are somewhat sensitive to lineup suggestiveness but there is room for improvement.
Subject(s)
Crime/legislation & jurisprudence , Jurisprudence , Suggestion , Adult , Homicide/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Male , Social Control, Formal , Theft/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
Criminal defendants should be protected from suggestive lineup procedures by the presence of their attorneys at lineups. This protection is effective only if attorneys are sensitive to factors that affect lineup suggestiveness. This study assessed attorney sensitivity to foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Stimuli were 8 videotaped lineups in which the 3 factors were manipulated between subjects. Assistant public defenders (N = 109) viewed the videotapes and completed a questionnaire that assessed perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability. Attorneys were very sensitive to foil bias but only somewhat sensitive to instruction bias. Their perceptions of presentation bias were contrary to empirical research results. Attorneys reported that they are rarely present at lineups. These results imply that the presence-of-counsel safeguard may be less effective than it could and should be.