Eyewitness credibility assessments in criminal proceedings: how much psychology is there in a legal task?
Choose format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEPublication date: 04.06.2025
Problems of Forensic Sciences, 2024, 140, pp. 311-333
https://doi.org/10.4467/12307483PFS.24.019.21618Authors
Eyewitness credibility assessments in criminal proceedings: how much psychology is there in a legal task?
This study aimed to investigate the legal credibility assessment of eyewitness testimonies in criminal proceedings, with particular attention to the criteria used by courts to assess eyewitness credibility and the factors that influence the number of criteria in the assessment. It also investigated whether judicial credibility assessment is subject to bias. We conducted a case record analysis of criminal cases (N = 381), wherein a total of 3210 eyewitnesses were interviewed at trial. The analysis revealed that legal credibility assessment seems superficial – courts evoke a small number of criteria to justify their judgments and tend to cite only a few despite individual differences in testimonies and eyewitnesses. The legal assessment of eyewitness credibility is influenced by numerous procedural and individual (for the eyewitnesses) factors; our analysis showed that this is subject to certain biases. The practical implications of these results are discussed along with avenues for future research.
1. Kebbell M. Credibility. In: Brown JM, Campbell EA, editors. The Cambridge handbook of forensic psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. p.153-158.
2. ten Brinke L, Porter S. Discovering deceit: applying laboratory and field research in the search for truthful and deceptive behavior. In: Cooper B, Griesel D, Ternes M, editors. Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 221-237.
3. Vrij A. Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008.
4. Bogaard G, Meijer EH, Vrij A, Merckelbach H. Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) cannot distinguish between truthful and fabricated accounts of a negative event. Front Psychol. 2016;7:243.
5. Masip J, Sporer SL, Garrido E, Herrero C. The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: a review of the empirical evidence. Psychol Crime Law. 2005;11(1):99-122.
6. National Research Council. The polygraph and lie detection. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2003.
7. Vrij A. Criteria-based content analysis: a qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychol Public Pol L. 2005;11(1):3-41.
8. Bingham T. Assessing contentious eyewitness evidence: a judicial view. In: Heaton-Armstrong A, Shepher E, Gudjonsson G, Wolchover D, editors. Witness testimony. Psychological, investigative and evidential perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 327-344.
9. Bala N, Ramakrishnan K, Lindsay R, Lee K. Judicial assessment of the credibility of child witnesses. Alb L Rev. 2005;42(4):995-1017.
10. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188. 1972. Available from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/188/
11. Supreme Court of Poland. Case No. II KK 410/04. 2005. Available from: http://www.sn.pl/sites/orzecznictwo/Orzeczenia1/II%20KK%20410-04.pdf
12. Fisher RP, Vrij A, Leins DA. Does testimonial inconsistency indicate memory inaccuracy and deception? Beliefs, empirical research, and theory. In: Cooper BS, Griese D, Ternes M, editors. Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 173-189.
13. Vredeveldt A, van Koppen PJ, Granhag PA. The inconsistent suspect: a systematic review of different types of consistency in truth tellers and liars. In: Bull R, editor. Investigative interviewing. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 183-207.
14. Krix AC, Sauerland M, Lorei C, Rispens I. Consistency across repeated eyewitness interviews: Contrasting police detectives’ beliefs with actual eyewitness performance. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(2).
15. Oeberst A. If anything else comes to mind...better keep it to yourself? Delayed recall is discrediting – unjustifiably. Law Hum Behav. 2012;36(4):266-274.
16. Masip J, Herrero C. Police detection of deception: beliefs about behavioral cues to deception are strong even though contextual evidence is more useful. J Commun. 2015;65(1):125-145.
17. Novotny E, Carr Z, Frank MG, Dietrich SB, Shaddock T, Cardwell M, et al. How people really suspect and discover lies. J Nonverbal Behav. 2018;42(1):41-52.
18. Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Dexter HR. Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law Hum Behav. 1990;14(2):185-191.
19. Penrod S, Cutler B. Witness confidence and witness accuracy: assessing their forensic relation. Psychol Public Pol L. 1995;1(4):817–845.
20. Gorazda M. Psychologia wyrokowania. Jak współczesna wiedza psychologiczna może oddziaływać na podstawowe zasady procesu sądowego? In: Habzda-Siwek E, Kabzińska J, editors. Psychologia i prawo. Między teorią i praktyką. Gdańsk: GWP; 2014. p. 204-218.
21. Ogloff JPR. A century of psychology and law. Successes, challenges and future opportunities. In: Martin PR, Cheung FM, Knowles MC, Kyrios M, Littlefield L, Overmier JB, Prieto JM, editors. IAAP handbook of applied psychology. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 362-385.
22. Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Hartwig M. Eyewitness testimony: tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals. Behav Sci Law. 2005;23(5):709-727.
23. Magnussen S, Wise RA, Raja AQ, Safer MA, Pawlenko N, Stridbeck U. What judges know about eyewitness testimony: a comparison of Norwegian and US judges. Psychol Crime Law. 2008;14(3):177-188.
24. Wise RA, Safer MA. What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Appl Cognit Psychol. 2004;18(4):427-443.
25. Hohl K, Conway MA. Memory as evidence: how normal features of victim memory lead to the attrition of rape complaints. Criminol Crim Justice. 2017;17(3):248-265.
26. Dysart JE, Strange D. Beliefs about alibis and alibi investigations: a survey of law enforcement. Psychol Crime Law. 2012;18(1):11-25.
27. Sommers SR, Douglass AB. Context matters: alibi strength varies according to evaluator perspective. Leg Criminol Psychol. 2007;12(1):41-54.
28. Burke TM, Marion SB. Alibi witnesses. In: Cutler BL, editor. Conviction of the innocent: lessons from psychological research. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2012. p. 239-256.
29. Blackwell S, Seymour F. Expert evidence and jurors’ views on expert witnesses. Psychiatry Psychol Law. 2015;22(5):673-681.
30. Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Dexter HR. The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law Hum Behav. 1989;13(3):311-332.
31. Gruza E. Ocena wiarygodności zeznań świadków w procesie karnym. Problematyka kryminalistyczna. Kraków: Wolters Kluwer; 2003.
32. Płachta M. Wykorzystanie i ocena zeznań świadka w procesie karnym. Zeszyty Naukowe UJ. 1985;116.
33. Supreme Court of Poland. Case No. V KRN 96/80. 1980.
34. Supreme Court of Poland. Case No. III KR 302/73. 1973.
35. Seniuk GTG. Credibility assessment, common law trials and fuzzy logic. In: Cooper B, Griesel D, Ternes M, editors. Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 19-32.
36. Rosenthal R. Interpersonal expectancy effects: a 30-year perspective. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1994;3(6):176-179.
37. Pickel K. Remembering and identifying menacing perpetrators: exposure to violence and the weapon focus effect. In: Lindsay RCL, Ross DF, Read JD, Toglia MP, editors. The handbook of eyewitness psychology, II: Memory for people. New York: LEA Publishers; 2007. p. 339-360.
38. Deffenbacher KA, Bornstein BH, Penrod SD, McGorty EK. A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law Hum Behav. 2004;28(6):687-706.
39. Pipe M, Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Esplin PW. Recent research on children’s testimony about experienced and witnessed events. Dev Rev. 2007;24(4):440-468.
40. Pozullo J. Person description and identification by child witnesses. In: Lindsay RCL, Ross DF, Read JD, Toglia MP, editors. The handbook of eyewitness psychology, II: Memory for people. New York: LEA Publishers; 2007. p. 283-307.
41. Melnyk L, Crossman AM, Scullin MH. The suggestibility of children’s testimony. In: Toglia MP, Read JD, Lindsay RCL, editors. Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume I: Memory for events. New York: Earlbaum Associates; 2007. p. 401-427.
42. Mueller-Johnson K, Ceci SJ. The elderly eyewitness: a review and prospectus. In: Toglia MP, Read JD, Lindsay RCL, editors. Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume I: Memory for events. New York: Earlbaum Associates; 2007. p. 577-603.
43. Wistrich AJ, Rachlinski JJ. Implicit bias in judicial decision making: how it affects judgment and what judges can do about it. Chapter 5: American Bar Association, Enhancing Justice. Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper. SSRN Electron J. 2017;17-16.
44. Stridbeck U, Granhag PA. Legal procedures in the Nordic countries and in the USA: a comparative overview. In: Granhag PA, editor. Forensic psychology in context. Nordic and international approaches. Devon: Willan Publishing; 2010. p. 14-32.
Information: Problems of Forensic Sciences, 2024, 140, pp. 311-333
Article type: Original scientific article
Titles:
Published at: 04.06.2025
Received at: 01.10.2024
Accepted at: 18.11.2024
Article status: Open
Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Information about research data:
Article financing:
Percentage share of authors:
Information about conflict of interests:
Article corrections:
-Publication languages:
English, PolishView count: 1318
Number of downloads: 1070
Suggested citations: Vancouver
