Eyewitness testimony: tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals

Abstract

This paper examines beliefs held by Swedish legal professionals about eyewitness testimony. In a survey including questions about 13 key issues of eyewitness testimony, three groups were investigated: police officers (n = 104), prosecutors (n = 158), and judges (n = 251). The response rate was 74%. Examples of findings are that the beliefs were in line with scientific findings concerning the weapon focus effect, but were not in line for simultaneous vs. sequential lineups. Between-group differences were found for seven items. Judges were much more sceptical than police officers about the reliability and completeness of children's testimonies. The groups seldom agreed about one answer alternative, and they reported not being up to date about scientific research on eyewitness testimony. The results suggest that some important research findings have reached those working on the field. However, they hold many wrongful beliefs about eyewitness testimony, beliefs that might compromise the accuracy of legal decisions.

Memory development: implications for adults recalling childhood experiences in the courtroom

“…However, these narratives were sparse on peripheral information and contained reconstructive errors 5 . In an effort to understand whether 'common sense' views of memory are consistent with what the scientific study of memory has revealed, a number of researchers [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] have posed questions about how memory operates to various legal professionals (lawyers, law enforcement officers, judges) as well as members of the general public who are eligible for jury service. As it turns out, the common sense view of memory is frequently inconsistent with the findings from memory research.…”

“…These views can be at odds [8][9][10][11][12] with what has been revealed by the scientific study of memory and its development. For example, many jurors and legal professionals (e.g., judges, lawyers, police) in North America 8 and Europe (e.g., Sweden 13 and Norway 14 ) are naïve when it comes to understanding how memories are formed, how they become distorted over time, and how stress and emotion affect remembering [15][16] . Jurors are similarly naïve when it comes to understanding whether children can remember events that happen only once, events that are traumatic, or which factors can affect the accuracy of memories across childhood (e.g., suggestibility, repeated questioning) 17 .…”

Expert Testimony on Eyewitness Evidence: In Search of Common Sense

“…Further surveys outside the US suggest similar low levels of knowledge regarding eyewitness memory issues by legal professionals. Granhag, Strömwall, and Hartwig (2005) found that the responses of Swedish police, lawyers and judges were in line with expert opinion on issues such as the possible effects of weapon presence during a crime, but not on issues such as line-up construction and administration. Furthermore, Granhag et al (2005) found that the legal professionals surveyed seldom agreed with each other on whether certain factors might affect the reliability and accuracy of eyewitness testimony.…”

“…Granhag, Strömwall, and Hartwig (2005) found that the responses of Swedish police, lawyers and judges were in line with expert opinion on issues such as the possible effects of weapon presence during a crime, but not on issues such as line-up construction and administration. Furthermore, Granhag et al (2005) found that the legal professionals surveyed seldom agreed with each other on whether certain factors might affect the reliability and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. They reported that the judges, in particular, were more likely than police officers or lawyers to respond "don't know" to questionnaire items.…”

“…They reported that the judges, in particular, were more likely than police officers or lawyers to respond "don't know" to questionnaire items. Indicative of this pattern of responding, Granhag et al (2005) also reported that the legal professionals who were surveyed felt they were not up-to-date with research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony. In a further survey, Magnussen et al (2008) found comparable low levels of knowledge regarding eyewitness memory among a Norwegian judicial sample.…”