Familiar Eyewitness Identifications: The Current State of Affairs

• Published in: Psychology, public policy, and law public policy, and law, 2019-08, Vol.25 (3), p.128-146
• Main Authors: Vallano, Jonathan P., Slapinski, Kristen A., Steele, Lisa J., Briggs, Abigail P., Pozzulo, Joanna D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adjudication; Crime; Decision Making; Exposure; Familiarity; Government Policy Making; Human; Memory; Perpetrators; Witnesses
• ISSN: 1076-8971; 1939-1528
• DOI: 10.1037/law0000204

This article examines "familiar identifications," or identifications where an eyewitness explicitly states that she has seen the perpetrator before the crime. The first section of this article reviews the literature on familiar identification accuracy. Although these identifications can be of high accuracy they are far from infallible, particularly in cases of minimal prior exposure and poor viewing conditions during the crime. Limitations and areas for future research are discussed. Specifically, we note the ill-defined nature of familiarity within the research and its oft-misleading treatment as a dichotomous construct, and therefore emphasize its continuous nature and recommend more ecologically valid research with "ground truth" data be conducted to examine how its differing degrees interact with other estimator variables. The second section of this article reviews how federal and state courts commonly deal with familiar identifications. The case law reveals that many courts believe any amount of familiarity enhances eyewitness memory and identification accuracy, which sometimes (correctly or incorrectly) lessens concerns over other variables known to lower identification accuracy (e.g., poor viewing conditions, a showup identification procedure). Consequentially, courts sometimes use familiarity to deny motions to suppress eyewitness evidence along with refusing to admit eyewitness experts and jury instructions. We discuss how well courts' decisions align with the research while providing concrete recommendations for expert witnesses and legal officials in familiar identification cases. Specifically, we argue that claimed familiarity should be examined for its veracity and its effects on identification accuracy be evaluated in relation to other estimator and system variables.