Opinion ID: 2222943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: what are the causes of the problem?

Text: Wade and Simmons recognize the psychological factors entailed in identification. [10a] Briefly, the causes stem from the universal fallibilities of perception and memory. Even assuming favorable conditions attending both the original perception and the memory period, there is additional possibility for error inherent in the recognition process itself. The possibility for error from these sources will be increased by the operation of aggravating factors, a major one being the many subtle forms of suggestion. The combined operation of these factors becomes even more significant in the process of seeking truth at trial because of another phenomenon singled out in Wade and Simmons  once any identification decision is made it may well be irreparable  the witness, whether right or wrong, is unlikely to change his or her mind. [11a] So for judges, lawyers and even more so to police (who have the most difficult job of finding and building a case against the one right man out of many) the important question is whether an identification is irreparably correct or whether it is probably an irreparable misidentification. It is important therefore to understand something of the operation of some of the most basic of these principles of psychology because our only measure of the probative worth of identification evidence is an ability, however fragile, to weight the probability of error in a given set of conditions.
Since identification entails an act of recognition, some knowledge of the literature on the psychology of recognition is helpful in appreciating the impact of suggestion and the effects of inaccurate memory or perception. Inherent in the process of recognition itself are two basic factors which encourage error. As will be seen, these factors are what the Court meant in Wade when it mentioned identification parades and showups and said: It is obvious that risks of suggestion attend either form of confrontation and increase the dangers inhering in eyewitness identification. [12a] Simmons also referred to the suggestion inherent in the procedure itself: Even if the police subsequently follow the most correct photographic identification procedures    there is some danger that the witness may make an incorrect identification. [13a]
Recall and Recognition are distinct forms of remembering. Recall is a straightforward proposition in which there are only very limited cues available to aid memory and the range of possible responses eliminates any significance in guessing. Recognition memory, on the other hand, arises only where useful memory cues do exist and the job is to make a right choice, or reasoned guess between the presented alternatives. [14a] Identification of suspects is a form of recognition memory involving an element of choice. As the number of possible choices decreases, the possibility of guessing and the consequence of unreliable results increases. A one-man or one-photo showup is, like a true and false exam, simply a form of recognition memory where there are only two choices  yes or no  and a flip of the coin would produce as many right answers as wrong ones. In a true-false exam in school, however, we can take comfort in our measure of accuracy because we have predetermined what choice is right. There is no such comfort in a showup. Thus, in a display of six pictures, there is inherent in the very process a degree of suggestion (the mere display suggests one of them is correct) and a possibility of error (five out of six guesses). [15a]
Wade and Simmons both note [16a] that the very process of sight recognition presents dangers that persons who are merely similar may be perceived as one and the same. Wade leads us to the explanation found in Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof (1937), §§ 250-253, and also noted in Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases (1965), p 10. The gist of it is that Recognition depends on similarity and therein lies the key to false recognition and major opportunities for unintentional, subtle suggestion. When we see something out there, the original mental record consists of an attitude or sensation composed of the various items in the object perceived. This attitude or sensation is preserved in the memory (more or less imperfectly) in the combination of the various perceived items by a process sometimes called association. What occurs during the recognition process is that a subconscious attitude or sensation of sameness or resemblance is aroused. This attitude or sensation of sameness is accompanied by a subjective feeling of familiarity when there are elements of similarity between the new and the previous situation. [17a] The way the mental processes operate in a hypothetical case (as lawyers are so fond of) is explained by Wigmore, supra, § 251. Dean Wigmore posits a simple case. There are two people, A and B. Each has perceivable characteristics (whatever they are) by which people identify him. PERSON A has perceivable characteristics which fall into patterns ............................... [b c d e f g] PERSON B has perceivable characteristics which fall into patterns ............................... [b c d m n p] You, the reader, have seen only person A previously and are now confronted with either A or B (you don't know which). THE QUESTION IS: What are your chances of mistaking PERSON B for A? Now this is completely apart from any suggestion intentional or otherwise but considers only the relationship between perception and memory as they operate in the recognition process. Four stages in the mental process which will produce the recognition are suggested by Wigmore: (1) First, the mind, when perceiving A, perceived a pattern, made up of items (say) b c d e f g. (2) Next the observer's memory recorded an impression of this pattern, all or part, i.e. all or some of the items b c d e f g associated. (3) Next, on being shown A or B, the mind perceives all or some of these items in the person perceived; if that person is A, the items perceivable will be b c d e f g; but if that person is B, the items perceivable will be (say) b c d m n p. (4) Next, comes the recollection of the originally recorded impressions by the stimulated process of association; and here the result depends on what took place mentally in stage (2) above: Wigmore, supra, § 251, p 535.