Silence is not golden.

Should psychologists present in court information concerning the psychological research on eyewitness testimony? This article suggests that documented cases of convictions of innocent people based on faulty eyewitness accounts conservatively tell us that there is room for improvement in our legal procedures. One suggested improvement is to educate jurors through expert testimony. Nearly a century of research has been conducted on the psychological factors that influence the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness accounts. Although our knowledge is not perfect, and undoubtedly never will be, it can still be useful in clarifying commonly held misconceptions. Further research will shed light on what forms of expertise can best provide the needed improvement. Recently, Paul Henderson, a reporter for the Seattle Times, won a 1982 Pulitzer Prize for a series of stories that revealed the innocence of a man who had been convicted of rape. The innocent man, 31year-old Steve Titus, had been convicted in February 1981 of raping a 17-year-old woman on a secluded road just south of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The victim positively identified Titus, breaking into tears as she made her identification. While awaiting sentencing, Titus battled to clear his name and eventually, with the help of Henderson, was able to achieve the exceedingly rare victory of having his conviction overturned. How common are such wrongful convictions? No one really knows. Our evidence here is purely anecdotal. Even the "sad, pathetic cases" to come before Erie Stanley Gardner's Court of Last Resort provide us with nothing more than a list of anecdotes. Gardner, the creator of Perry Mason, took cases of persons who were serving life sentences for murders they claimed they had not committed and reopened the cases that seemed meritorious. By far the greatest cause of conviction of innocent defendants, in 2,000 cases out of over 20,000 appeals for help, was mistaken identification (Houts, 1981, P. 2). What is known for certain is that the Titus case is one of many documented cases of mistaken eyewitness testimony that have had tragic consequences. Other instances can be found in recent books on eyewitness testimony (e.g., Loftus, 1979; Wells & Loftus, 1983; Yarmey, 1979), in the report of an investigation conducted in Great Britain (Devlin, 1976), and in a scan of recent newspaper stories. My friends and colleagues often send me clippings from their hometown papers, and I have now amassed a rather substantial pile. An article in the New York Post (December 30, 1980) begins "An innocent South Carolina man, charged with the murder of [a police officer] expressed a sigh of relief yesterday when told he was cleared." Three eyewitnesses searching police mugshot files picked out this man, but he was eventually able to prove that he had been at work that day. The Washington Post (November 17, 1981) reported that "a Southwest Washington teenager was arrested, tried, and convicted for the street robbery of an elderly woman. Two days after his conviction, city prosecutors discovered that another individual had previously confessed to the crime." The Seattle Times (November 15, 1980) ran a headline: "5 Years in Prison, Innocent Man Home." The story was about a former Baptist Sunday school teacher who was convicted of two rapes that prosecutors now know he did not do. Two women had identified him in a police lineup as the man who raped them. Another man eventually confessed to the rapes. And finally, from the San Francisco Chronicle (March 5, 1981), we learn that "The Wrong Man Spent Nine Years in Prison." Eyewitnesses had positively identified Aaron Lee Owens of Oakland, California, and he was convicted of double murder. New evidence that eventually freed Owens took that many years to uncover. If nothing else, these tragic mistakes tell us there is room for improvement in our legal procedures. Eyewitnesses can be mistaken not only about the identity of the person who committed the crime but about other facts as well. Eyewitness estimates about the passage of time can be crucial to a determination of whether a defendant acted maliciously or in self-defense. Eyewitness testimony about the color of a traffic light, whether it was red or green, can bear on the defendant's guilt in a negligent homicide case or on the issue of fault in a civil case. Witness recollections of conversations can bear on questions about premeditation, intent, and other matters. Thus, in studying the problems associated with eyewitness testimony, we need to concern ourselves with the variety of such testimony that might be offered in a court of law. 564 May 1983 • American Psychologist Copyright 1983 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. Should a psychologist get involved in cases in which eyewitness testimony plays a part? That is the question we now confront. Before tackling this issue, it is worth pointing out that many prosecutions for crimes such as robbery and rape turn on identification evidence. In fact, in the absence of physical evidence or an incriminating statement from the defendant, eyewitness testimony may constitute the sole evidence linking the defendant to the crime. The accuracy of such testimony seems especially crucial when the prosecution presents but a single eyewitness and nothing more. Defense attorneys find themselves in difficult positions. Until recently, their only hope for challenging the eyewitness account was to try to find weaknesses in it and somehow get these across to the jury. All too often, they failed miserably. It's a "lawyer's nightmare," they have explained to me, "defending someone who you believe is innocent and watching that person be convicted and sent to prison." And so they began to look for another way. They looked to psychologists