Final Paper: Case Study#3 Forensic Psychology: Information Recall / Eyewitness Testimony

ABS200
Instructor Clark
August 18, 2014
Ashford University

Applied behavioral science can be defined as a science that bases its concepts on the observations and learnings of human behavior. Science itself is all observation and learning, we try and try experiments in order to come to one or several conclusions and we observe in order to discover new things. In order to understand behaviors and what causes people do to the things they do we must observe not only the person but their surroundings and daily habits in order to understand them. In behavioral science there are many different sub-sections that can vary from clinical to criminal. Within these different sections we learn by making observations not just of one person but of every person we come across in our work and therefore have to learn how to make treatments based on these observations.
In criminal cases, most of the time we are analyzing not only why a person has committed the crime they have committed but what drove them to become the person that they are. In many cases there is a mental illness whether treated or untreated that can cause the person to become unbalanced and therefore dangerous. Other times it is caused by childhood events which cause mental trauma which causes the person to act out in a certain manner.
Cognitive psychology goes hand in hand with handling eye-witness testimony. With this type of psychology we use different styles however the memory part of cognitive psychology coincides with memory recall and how a person is able to retain memories in order to determine if the person’s memory is indeed valid. Cognitive psychology is defined as a branch of psychology concerned with mental processes (as perception, thinking, learning, and memory) especially with respect to the internal events occurring between sensory stimulation and the overt expression of behavior (htt). This part of psychology is very important especially to forensic psychology, because in forensic psychology you’re required to delve into the patients mind and understand their competency and also while interviewing witnesses or others involved in the trial.
Cognitive psychology deals with the mental processes of psychology. This branch of psychology deals with retention and how a person learns, processes, perceives and stores information. In this case, memory recall goes hand in hand with cognitive psychology. Since cognitive psychology is concerned with the mental processes, memory included, these are very important parts of forensic psychology and the processes of how we retrieve memories. Information recall, while many can argue is a “social” issue or a “cultural” issue, with the way our society has ultimately become a “no-snitch” world when a crime occurs.
When these events occur many times we rely on the testimony of witnesses before there is any other forensic evidence available. While these accounts help the police in capturing their culprit, it is also at times not a reliable or valid account. While many times an eye-witness account is valid and useful, other times it is simply the person saw someone who either looked suspicious or was in the vicinity when the events happened. Often times eyewitness testimonies are dismissed in court due to the fact that attorneys will argue on the validity of the account.
Eyewitness testimony is often times argued as being coerced and therefore deems inadmissible in court due to the fact that attorneys will argue that the account is not valid and could be a tarnished or coerced account of events. Eyewitness testimony can also be argued that a person’s memory when the criminal goes to trial a year or even six months from the time of the event can change and the person may or may not remember the events that occurred that day.
A person may be able to tell the police in that moment what they saw however in a week, six months, a year or even longer may not be able to tell the police, attorneys, judge and jury what they saw. In this moment this is where solidified statements that are taken when the witness first gives their statement come into play allowing for the person to either validate or retract their statement.
In the case of June, the argument with the validity of her statement is that she was coaxed with specific questioning which lead to a specific person that the officers had focused their attention on. Eyewitness testimony is extremely important especially when there is a lack of physical evidence or none at all. The process of eyewitness testimony will usually begin at a crime scene with officers asking witnesses if they had seen anything that could be of importance to their case, after assessing the witnesses and their validity the officers will then bring in the witness to see a line-up in order to see if they can properly identify the person the police are looking for.
Other times when they are unable to get a suspect in at that instant moment, officers may bring in witnesses and ask them to speak with a sketch artist in order to make an artist rendering of what they remembered of the suspect. Using the witnesses’ memory recall, the officers use the composite that they have the sketch artist create in order to further allow them to find the suspect they are looking for. Often times however, the memory of the witness given the amount of time that has passed may give either the wrong description of the suspect or a broad spectrum of suspects due to the lack of memory of the event.
However, many times it is argued that eyewitness statements, although extremely helpful to cases can be disproven and put under a microscope by defense attorneys. Defense attorneys will argue that a witnesses statement may often times be coerced by the context of the questioning and the manner in which they are being questioned. The context of questioning can create a false memory which may make the witness think that the person or events the officer is describing could indeed be what they had viewed or experienced. While there is not much information in the case study, we can assume that June did not go through a stressful event which could cause for her eyewitness testimony to also be effected.
There are several different types of interviews that can be conducted on an eye-witness. A standard interview is the basic “who did you see? And “what were they doing?” As opposed to a cognitive interview which delves deeper into the witnesses mind and can help them to remember more and more about the events that transpired. The techniques in a cognitive interview allow for the person conducting the interview to put the witness almost in a state of hypnosis which allows for their mind to go back to the moment that they experienced and gives them the potential to possibly give a clearer statement based on the fact that their mind is clear. It is often argued however, that many eye-witness testimonies are coerced. Psychologists have often argued over the validity and accuracy of eye-witness testimony. Several studies have shown that eyewitness testimony could by misled into the direction that the officers would like it to by using suggestive information or questioning. Several studies have been done in which people watch a video on a violent event and are asked questions based on what they saw. In the controlled group, they are told to simply answer the questions that they can remember while in the non-controlled group they are simply told to guess the questions that they could not remember. In order to improve witness recall, I would make sure that not only are the statements taken with clear, non-coerced questioning but also to be recorded. By allowing these statements to be recorded, defense attorneys could be able to see that there is no forcing or questioning that would be used to force the witness to be pulled towards a specific description that the police are already specifically looking for. Also, in the same respect they would be able to see whether or not the witness was under duress or in a stressful situation which could have hindered them having a clear mind therefore making it easier for them to be coerced into making an incorrect statement and think that it was correct. I also feel that rather than have an officer conduct the witness interviews, they should have a psychologist who is able to question the witness in the proper way. Many times a defense attorney could argue that an officer is looking to specifically finger that one individual person who they arrested therefore using coercive questioning to lean the witness towards the person they arrested. A psychologist is able to use questioning that will not only allow for the questions to be clearly understood, but also for the fact that they are able to analyze the person better and understand if the person is indeed competent enough to make these statements. In the case of June, the defense attorney can argue that the due to the fact that she missed important facts she was coerced into her eyewitness testimony. June’s interview could be considered a contextual interview which would mean that she was given specific questions which could lean towards a specific person rather than allowing her to think for herself and remember the situation on her own. In many situations it can be argued that the eyewitness testimony, since it is indeed so vital to the case due to lack of evidence can be coerced to go in a specific way in order to help a case that the officers may already feel is indeed a sure thing. It is often the case when a crime occurs that the person is a repeat offender and the police know that the crime committed was something they may have committed however they do not have sufficient evidence to prove this fact. In working with eyewitnesses I feel that it is vital to get their statement quickly but when the witness themselves are calm and not in a situation where they feel unsafe. For example, if a person witnesses a shooting and is indeed the sole witness of the event, they may not feel safe going in and instantaneously making an eyewitness statement due to the fact that they have borne witness to a stressful situation. Often times witnesses of traumatic events can have retrograde amnesia which then makes the situations even more difficult because they are harder to question. A person with retrograde amnesia due to a traumatic event is more likely to be coerced into giving a false witness testimony due to the fact that they are unable to fully remember what occurred or are simply trying to block out the situation that occurred. However, in these situations once the person or persons are finally able to remember what occurred it can interfere with the testimony that was previously taken therefore making the defense’s case much easier. I would conduct a case study in which a group of subjects are watching a traumatic event and also are a part of a traumatic event. After these events I would take the groups and separate them making one group a control group and one a non-control group. With both groups I would ask them a specific group of questions pertaining to both of the events they experienced.
In the control group, if the subject does not remember what happened they would be told to simply skip the question and continue on to the next question since they do not know the proper way to respond. Within this group I would prove that but not persuading the person to have to come up with an answer because they are being forced into the questioning. This group will prove that with the correct questioning and proper wording the witnesses statements can be deemed valid as long as the questions are not coercive and contextual.
In the non-control group, the subject will be made to answer the questions that are asked of them whether they remember exactly what happened or not. In this situation the subject is required to answer every question whether the answer is right or wrong because an answer is required. Within the non-control group a defense attorney use this experiment as a way to disprove eye-witness testimony as a valid part of the prosecution which can cause them to ultimately use that to their advantage.
Although these two groups will be watching the same video and experiencing the same event. The groups will be questioned differently due to where they are placed. In order to make sure that each person feels comfortable and understands the situation going on and the unsureness of whether or not they will be in the controlled or non-controlled group. To build a rapport with the subjects I would create an environment that is both calming and conducive to being able to properly answer questions and remain focused in these situations.
The advantages of having these interviews conducted by a psychologist would be that the interviews would be conducted in a manner in which the questioning would be more thorough and understandable. While a psychologist can question an eyewitness, they are also vital due to the fact that they are able to analyze the eyewitness to get a better grip on the persons mental state and competency. A disadvantage to having a psychologist interview a subject is that a defense attorney could argue that the persons mental state being questioned at the time could hinder their memory recall.
In Junes case since there was no DNA evidence, the case solely relied on her testimony which was a make or break for the defendant. Within this case the fact that the evidence was minimal and Junes testimony lacked key parts of vital information, the case should have been dismissed pending further investigation. Within this investigation the defense attorney would be able to go over and reanalyze all the information that was given to them and conduct their own interview of June in order to corroborate her testimony. While this may often times prove detrimental to the case, it allows for the defense to be able to possibly prove their clients innocence and make a valid case for questioning the validity of eye-witness testimony.
In recent years through many scientific forensic breakthroughs, the witness statement has begun to carry less validity. These breakthroughs in forensics allow for the culprit to be caught in a non-errors way as opposed to a false witness statement. Through scientific breakthroughs that have been advancing since the 1980’s, the eyewitness testimony has held less validity. This is based on the fact that through science we are able to find the evidence necessary in order to apprehend the proper culprit. Since science has become more and more of a part of forensics, the eyewitness testimony has become less valid. This is also due to the fact that many feel that a person’s memory can easily be manipulated into assuming the information being told to them is true and that the person being described to them is or is not the culprit they are looking for.

Works Cited
Pezdek, K., Sperry, K., & Owens, S. M. (2007). Interviewing witnesses: The effect of forced confabulation on event memory.Law and Human Behavior, 31(5), 463-78. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9081-5
Perfect, T. J., Wagstaff, G. F., Moore, D., Andrews, B., Cleveland, V., Newcombe, S., . . . Brown, L. (2008). How can we help witnesses to remember more? it's an (eyes) open and shut case. Law and Human Behavior, 32(4), 314-24. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9109-5
Wright, D. B., Self, G., & Justice, C. (2000). Memory conformity: Exploring misinformation effects when presented by another person. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 189-202. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199597568?accountid=32521
Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-95. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/205796622?accountid=32521
Davey, G. (Ed). (2011). Applied psychology. West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.