Lawyers' questioning: the effect of confusing questions on witness confidence and accuracy.

The present study investigated the effect on witness confidence and accuracy of confusing questions often used by attorneys in court. Participants viewed a videotaped film and were individually questioned about the incident 1 week later. Half the participants were asked questions using six categories of confusing questions (negatives, double negatives, leading, multiple questions, complex syntax, and complex vocabulary); the remaining half were asked for the same information using simply phrased equivalents. Confusing questions reduced participant-witnesses' accuracy and suppressed confidence-accuracy relationships compared with the condition where simplified alternatives were asked. Witness performance was impaired by the fact that mock-witnesses rarely asked for a confusing question to be explained or qualified their answers. This experiment demonstrates the importance of ensuring that lawyers ask witnesses simple, clear, questions.

The law concerning the conduct of lineups in England and Wales: how well does it satisfy the recommendations of the American Psychology-Law Society?

Four rules minimize the likelihood of a false conviction resulting from the misidentification of a suspect from a lineup: (1) The person conducting the lineup should not know which member of the lineup is the suspect. (2) The eyewitness should be warned that the criminal might not be present. (3) Foils should be selected based on the eyewitness's verbal description of the criminal. (4) Confidence should be recorded at the time of identification. In this paper the relevant law relating to lineups in England and Wales is outlined and the extent to which they satisfy the four rules is reviewed. It is concluded that the way in which lineups are conducted in England and Wales would, with minor modifications, satisfy the four rules, and this demonstrates that the rules can be applied practically.

Some experimental influences of lawyers' complicated questions on eyewitness confidence and accuracy.

Eyewitness evidence and the confidence the eyewitness expresses in such evidence are crucial in many criminal trials. The present study is an examination of the influence of confusing questions often used by attorneys to examine witnesses in court. Participants viewed a videotaped incident and were questioned about the incident 1 week later. Half the participants were asked questions framed in a confusing form; the remaining half were asked the same questions in straightforward language. Confusing questions reduced the participant witnesses' accuracy and suppressed the confidence-accuracy relationships compared with the condition in which simple questions were asked. However, the number of absolutely sure responses was the same in both conditions, although these responses were almost always accurate in the simplified condition, whereas in the confusing question condition, accuracy was comparatively poor. This experiment demonstrates the importance of ensuring that lawyers ask witnesses simple, clear questions.

People with mental retardation as witnesses in court: a review.

Evidence concerning eyewitness testimony given by people with mental retardation in court was reviewed. Despite general perceptions that people with mental retardation make incompetent witnesses, available evidence suggests that they can provide accurate accounts of witnessed events. The accounts are usually less complete than those provided by the general population and are greatly influenced by the methods of questioning. The sparse available evidence suggests that cross-examination methods may lead to memory distortion. The use of closed, complex, and leading questions and the absence of aids to recall may have a particularly adverse effect on people with mental retardation. Resulting errors could lead to a false conviction or acquittal. Future policy and research in this much neglected area were discussed.

Police officers' perceptions of eyewitness performance in forensic investigations.

Few contemporary data support the assertion that eyewitnesses are important in police investigations. In the present study, 159 UK police officers were surveyed regarding their perceptions of eyewitnesses and eyewitness performance. The respondents indicated that eyewitnesses usually provide the central leads in criminal investigations; however, the police officers also believed that eyewitnesses rarely provide sufficient information, especially descriptive details as opposed to action details. Nevertheless, the officers believed that eyewitnesses are rarely incorrect. A sizable minority reported that witnesses rarely come forward to the police and that those who do are often reluctant to testify in court. Many officers indicated that they do not have enough time to conduct good eyewitness interviews.

Hypnotic interviewing: the best way to interview eyewitnesses?

It has been suggested that hypnosis techniques may have the potential to enhance eyewitness memory in forensic investigations. However, laboratory research shows that increases in recall with hypnosis techniques are often associated with decreases in accuracy, false confidence in incorrect information, and increased suggestibility to leading questions and misleading post-event information. These problems limit the usefulness of hypnosis as an interviewing procedure. However, in practical investigations, many factors associated with hypnosis, apart from the hypnotic induction itself, might lead to memory enhancement compared with standard police interviews. For example, hypnotic interviewers, because of their psychological, clinical, and interpersonal skills, may be better interviewers than police officers. They may use effective interviewing strategies such as those associated with the "cognitive interview"; a procedure which has the potential to enhance recall by approximately 35% without the problems of memory distortion associated with hypnosis. It is concluded, therefore, that a cognitive interview procedure should be used in preference to hypnosis.