Each entry below includes a brief synopsis of the publication?s focus to assist trainers and
students in selecting material for further study.
Connors, E., T. Lundregan, N. Miller, and T. McEwen, Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science:
Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1996, NCJ 161258.
This NIJ Research Report describes 28 cases in which DNA evidence was used to exonerate persons
who had been convicted at trial. The report notes that 24 of these 28 cases involved mistaken
identification by the eyewitness(es). The report is also useful for noting other kinds of evidence
that may have contributed to the wrongful convictions.
Cutler, B.L., and S.D. Penrod. Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology, and the
Law. New York: Cambridge, 1995.
This book attempts to address the broad range of issues in eyewitness identification, including
crossrace identification, ?weapon focus,? and other topics.
Dunning, D., and L.B. Stern. ?Distinguishing Accurate from Inaccurate Identifications via
Inquiries about Decision Processes.? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (1994):
This article describes experiments that analyze what witnesses say during their identifications
(such as, ?the face just ?popped out? from the lineup and that is how I made my identification
decision?), as well as how these statements differ among witnesses who made accurate versus
Fisher, R.P., and M.L. McCauley. ?Information Retrieval: Interviewing Witnesses.? In Psychology
and Policing, ed. N. Brewer and C. Wilson. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995: 81?99.
This chapter examines laboratory and field research conducted as part of the cognitive interview
(CI) procedure. It summarizes the major principles underlying the CI technique and indicates its
strengths and weaknesses. It also describes what conditions are most and least effective for the
Fisher, R.P., and R.E. Geiselman. Memory Enhancing Techniques for Investigative
Interviewing. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, 1992.
This book describes in detail how to conduct the cognitive interview procedure to enhance the
recall of cooperative eyewitnesses. Examples of correct and incorrect techniques are provided,
along with critiques of sample interviews.
Fisher, R.P., R.E. Geiselman, and D.S. Raymond. ?Critical Analysis of Police Interview Techniques.?
Journal of Police Science and Administration 15 (1987): 177?185.
This article describes typical police interview procedures with cooperative witnesses and notes
the most common types of errors made by police interviewers. Suggestions are made to improve
police interviewing skills.
Geiselman, R.E., and R.P. Fisher. ?Ten Years of Cognitive Interviewing.? In Intersections in
Basic and Applied Memory Research, ed. D. Payne and F. Conrad. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,
This chapter summarizes the scientific research used to develop and test the cognitive interview
(CI) procedure and also describes instances in which the CI was implemented to solve specific
Lindsay, R.C.L., and G.L. Wells. ?Improving Eyewitness Identification From Lineups: Simultaneous
Versus Sequential Lineup Presentations.? Journal of Applied Psychology 70 (1985):
This article describes an experiment that compared the simultaneous lineup procedure with the
sequential lineup procedure. It explains the research methods used and the psychological principles
that make each procedure different.
Loftus, E.F., and J. Doyle. Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal, 3d ed. Charlottesville, VA:
Lexis Law Publishing, 1997.
This practice-oriented book, used frequently by defense lawyers, addresses eyewitness reliability
and includes references to psychological studies and case law. Issues in expert testimony are
Malpass, R.S., and R.C.L. Lindsay. ?Measuring Lineup Fairness.? Applied Cognitive Psychology
13 (1999): S1?S8.
This article, the first in a special issue of Applied Cognitive Psychology on the topic of lineup fairness,
briefly reviews the history of lineup fairness measures. It also provides a simple introduction
to quantitative evaluation of lineups and supplies references to other articles that will allow the
reader to develop evaluation procedures for his/her own use.
Ross, D.F., J.D. Read, and M.P. Toglia, eds. Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Current Trends and
Developments. New York: Cambridge, 1994.
This book examines broad issues in eyewitness identification. Different researchers author each
of the 18 chapters. Included are chapters on ?earwitnesses? (voice identification), distinctions
between live and video lineups, the role that personality can play in eyewitness testimony, and
how jurors evaluate eyewitness testimony. A chapter by Wells et al., ?Recommendations for Conducting
Lineups,? (pp. 223?244) details various procedures for conducting lineups and the rationale
for several general propositions.
Scheck, B., P. Neufeld, and J. Dwyer. Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches
from the Wrongly Convicted. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
This engaging and helpful book bluntly recognizes the need to improve investigative techniques
in the area of eyewitness evidence to ensure that innocent people are not wrongly accused or
convicted. It notes that improvement should come from all areas of the criminal justice system?prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and law enforcement personnel. Police officials are
encouraged to disregard any perceived biases on the part of the authors and digest the book?s
Sporer, S.L. ?Eyewitness Identification Accuracy, Confidence, and Decision Times in Simultaneous
and Sequential Lineups.? Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (1993): 22?33.
This article provides support for the advantage that sequential lineups have shown in protecting
innocent suspects from being falsely identified.
Sporer, S.L., R.S. Malpass, and G. Koehnken, eds. Psychological Issues in Eyewitness Identification.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996.
This book contains 12 chapters written by 16 researchers in the field of eyewitness evidence. Topics
covered include legal aspects; effects of witness, target, and situational factors; person descriptions;
face recall; voice identification; the ?other race? effect; enhancing eyewitness memory;
forensic applications of eyewitness research; identification evidence from children; elderly witnesses;
and the logic and methodology of experimental research in eyewitness psychology. The book
was written to appeal to a wide range of professionals in the criminal justice system.
Wells, G.L. ?What Do We Know about Eyewitness Identification?? American Psychologist 48
(5) (1993): 553?571.
This article reviews several principles of eyewitness identification that are widely accepted in
psychology. It focuses on the concept of relative judgments as a cause of mistaken identification,
as well as problems relating to eyewitness confidence.
Wells, G.L., M.R. Leippe, and T.M. Ostrom. ?Guidelines for Empirically Assessing the Fairness
of a Lineup.? Law and Human Behavior 3 (1979): 285?293.
This article describes the most common way that scientific psychologists assess whether the
fillers in a lineup are adequate. It expands on such topics as the ?mock witness? method and
introduces the concept of ?functional lineup size.?
Wells, G.L., M. Small, S.D. Penrod, R.S. Malpass, S.M. Fulero, and C.A.E. Brimacombe. ?Eyewitness
Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads.? Law and
Human Behavior 22 (1998): 603?647.
This is an official paper of the American Psychology-Law Society that represents broad agreement
among eyewitness researchers as to how lineups should be conducted. It includes an analysis of
the first 40 DNA exoneration cases, which show that 36 of the 40 wrongly convicted people had
been convicted primarily because of eyewitness misidentification.
Wells, G.L., S.M. Rydell, and E.P. Seelau. ?On the Selection of Distractors for Eyewitness Lineups.?
Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (1993): 835?844.
This article explains how researchers conduct experiments on eyewitness identification. It discusses
in detail the reason why lineup fillers should be selected using the description given by the
eyewitness and why they should not be selected merely to look like the suspect. It also presents
a major experiment that tests various ways to select fillers.