888:
Supreme Court decision), Ohio, and
Kentucky. States generally prohibiting it include Pennsylvania and Missouri. Many states have less clear guidelines under appellate court precedent, such as Mississippi, New York, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. It is often difficult to tell whether expert testimony has been allowed in a given state, since if the trial court lets the expert testify, there is generally no record created. On the other hand, if the expert is not allowed, that becomes a ground of appeal if the defendant is convicted. That means that most cases that generate appellate records are cases only in which the expert was disallowed (and the defendant was convicted).
864:. Under the federal standard, if an identification procedure is shown to be unnecessarily suggestive, the court must consider whether certain independent indicia of reliability are present, and if so, weigh those factors against the corrupting effect of the flawed police procedure. Within that framework, the court should determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification appears to be reliable. If not, the identification evidence must be excluded from evidence under controlling federal precedent.
655:, released a report examining the methodology and claims of the Illinois Report. Their conclusions appeared to have confirmed concerns of the early critics. Researchers reported that the study had a basic flaw that adversely affected its scientific merit, and "guaranteed that most outcomes would be difficult or impossible to interpret." Their primary critique was that variables had been "confounded", making it impossible to draw meaningful comparisons among the methods tested.
1007:
normally be told "that an identification procedure enables suspects to put the reliability of an eye-witness's identification to the test, that the suspect has lost the benefit of that safeguard, and that they should take account of that fact in their assessment of the whole case, giving it such weight as they think fit". Informal identifications made through social media such as
Facebook (often in breach of Code D), pose particular problems for the criminal courts.
724:
for 40 minutes in a well-lit room. The following day, each participant was asked to select his or her interrogator out of either a live or photo lineup. In the case of the photo spread – the most common form of police lineup in the U.S. – those subjected to the high-stress scenario falsely identified someone other than the interrogator in 68% of cases, compared to 12% of misidentifications by persons in the low-stress scenario.
749:
680:
Preparation for cross-examination, including a witness thinking about how to answer questions regarding the identification, has also been shown to artificially inflate an eyewitness's sense of certainty about it. The same is true if a witness learns that another witness identified the same person. This malleability of eyewitness confidence has been shown to be far more pronounced in cases where the witness turns out to be wrong.
489:
905:
but will allow a generic instruction, while others find detailed instructions on specific factors to be critical to a fair trial. California allows instructions when police procedures are in conflict with established best practices, for example, and New Jersey mandates an instruction on the cross-race effect when the identification is central to the case and uncorroborated by other evidence.
620:
should be presented to a witness by himself, rather than showing a group of photos or individuals to a witness together. According to social scientists, use of this procedure will minimize the effects of the "relative judgment" process discussed above. It encourages witnesses to compare each person individually to his or her independent memory of the perpetrator.
1051:
Social scientists are committing more resources to studying and understanding the mechanisms of human memory in the eyewitness context, and lawyers, scholars, and legislators are devoting increasing attention to the fact that faulty eyewitness evidence remains the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States.
1727:, in PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW: AN EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIVE (Neil Brewer & Kip Williams, eds., forthcoming 2007) ("We have known for over 100 years that memories fade, sometimes rapidly, in a function known as the forgetting curve.... that as memories fade, they also become more susceptible to suggestion.").
1050:
Largely in response to the mounting list of wrongful convictions discovered to have resulted from faulty eyewitness evidence, an effort is gaining momentum in the United States to reform police procedures and the various legal rules addressing the treatment of eyewitness evidence in criminal trials.
1031:
When, in the judgment of the trial judge, the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glance or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions, the judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other
789:
The opportunity that a witness has to view the perpetrator and the level of attention paid have also been shown to affect the reliability of an identification. Attention paid, however, appears to play a more substantial role than other factors like lighting, distance, or duration. For example, when
719:
The effect of stress on eyewitness recall is widely misunderstood in its effects by the general public, and therefore, by most jurors. Studies have consistently shown that stress has a dramatically negative impact on the accuracy of eyewitness memory, a phenomenon that witnesses themselves often do
706:
Researchers have studied issues related to cross-racial identification, namely, when the witness and the perpetrator are of different races. A meta-analysis of 25 years of research published in 2001 showed that there is a definitive, statistically significant "cross-race impairment;" that is members
679:
Any feedback from the lineup administrator following a witness's identification can have a dramatic effect on a witness's sense of their accuracy. A highly tentative "maybe" can be artificially transformed into "100% confident" with a simple comment such as "Good, you identified the actual suspect."
658:
The critics found the following: The
Illinois study compared the traditional simultaneous method of lineup presentation with the sequential double-blind method recommended by recognized researchers in the field. The traditional method is not conducted double-blind (meaning that the person presenting
623:
According to researchers, use of a simultaneous procedure makes it more likely that witnesses will pick the person in the group who looks the most like their memory of the perpetrator. This introduces a high risk of misidentification when the actual perpetrator is not present in the lineup. In 2006,
484:
Jennifer
Thompson was a college student in North Carolina in 1984, when a man broke into her apartment, put a knife to her throat, and raped her. According to her own account, she studied her rapist throughout the incident with great determination to memorize his face. "I studied every single detail
1023:
The judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance on the correctness of the identification or identifications. In addition he should instruct them as to the reason for the need for such a warning and should make some reference to the possibility
1018:
Where the identification of the defendant is in issue (not merely the honesty of the identifier or the fact that the defendant matched a particular description), and the prosecution rely substantially or wholly on the correctness of one or more identifications of the defendant, the judge should give
710:
Various hypotheses have been tested, including racial animosity on the part of the viewer, and exposure level by the viewer to the other race in question. The cross-race impairment has been observed to substantially overshadow all other variables for witnesses, even when the persons tested have been
632:
In 2005, the
Illinois state legislature commissioned a pilot project to test recommended reform measures intended to increase the accuracy and reliability of police identification procedures. The Chicago police department conducted the study. Its initial report purported to show that the status quo
1006:
automatically mean that the evidence will be excluded, but the judge should consider whether a breach has occurred and what the effect of the breach was on the defendant. If a judge decides to admit evidence where there has been a breach, he should give reasons, and in a jury trial, the jury should
772:
A study unrelated to eyewitness identification in criminal cases reports that individuals have a much better memory for faces than for numbers. This would indicate that not all eyewitness identifications are equal. An identification where the eyewitness clearly saw the face of the perpetrator would
723:
In a seminal study on this topic, Yale psychiatrist
Charles Morgan and a team of researchers tested the ability of trained, military survival school students to identify their interrogators following low- and high-stress scenarios. In each condition, subjects were face-to-face with an interrogator
662:
But This criticism ignores the fact that the mandate of the
Illinois legislature was to compare the traditional method with the academic method. More significantly, as an experiment to determine whether or not sequential double-blind administration would be superior to the simultaneous methods used
610:
If a neutral observer is able to select the suspect from the lineup based on the recorded description by the witness – that is, if the suspect is the only one present who clearly fits the description – then the procedure cannot be relied upon as a test of the witness's
554:
Researchers hypothesized that instructing the witness prior to the lineup might serve to mitigate the occurrence of error. Studies have shown that instructing a witness that the perpetrator "may or may not be present" in the lineup can dramatically reduce the likelihood that a witness will identify
541:
According to eyewitness researchers, the most likely cause of this misidentification is what is termed the "relative judgment" process. That is, when viewing a group of photos or individuals, a witness tends to select the person who looks "most like" the perpetrator. When the actual perpetrator is
904:
Criminal defense lawyers often propose detailed jury instructions as a mechanism to offset undue reliance on eyewitness testimony, when factors shown to undermine its reliability are present in a given case. Many state courts prohibit instructions detailing specific eyewitness reliability factors
683:
When there is a positive correlation between eyewitness confidence and accuracy, it tends to occur when a witness's confidence is measured immediately following the identification, and prior to any confirming feedback. As a result, researchers suggest that a statement of a witness's confidence, in
537:
One cause of inaccurate identifications results from police lineups that do not include the perpetrator of the crime. In other words, police may suspect one person of having committed a crime, although in fact it was committed by another, still unknown person, who thus is excluded from the lineup.
887:
on the factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness evidence is allowed in some U.S. jurisdictions, and not in others. In most states, it is left to the discretion of the trial court judge. States generally allowing it include
California, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Tennessee (by a 2007 state
875:
has failed to meet the Court's objective of furthering fairness and reliability." For example, the Court requires that the confidence of the witness be considered as an indicator of the reliability of the identification evidence. As noted above, however, extensive studies in the social sciences
841:
Detectives interrogating children in the court perhaps lack the necessary training to make them effective perhaps “ more work needs to be done in finding effective ways of helping appropriate members of the legal profession to develop skills and understanding in child development and in talking
670:
The
Innocence Project Lineup studies mentioned here previously were never funded, largely because the expected grant funds were withdrawn in connection with economic difficulties. A separate grant was submitted to the Department of Justice in March 2009 by the independent Urban Institute to study
521:
The police procedures used to collect eyewitness evidence have been found to have strong effects on the conclusions of witnesses. Studies have identified various factors that can affect the reliability of police identification procedures as a test of eyewitness memory. These procedural mechanisms
496:
Thompson went to the police station later that same day to work up a of her attacker, relying on what she believed was her detailed memory. Several days later, the police constructed a photographic lineup, and she selected Ronald Junior Cotton from the lineup. She later testified against him at
950:
In any cases where identification may be an issue, a record must be made of the description of the suspect first given by a witness. This should be disclosed to the suspect or his solicitor. If the ability of a witness to make a positive visual identification is likely to be an issue, one of the
1054:
Reform measures mandating that police use established best practices when collecting eyewitness evidence have been implemented in New Jersey, North
Carolina, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Minnesota. Bills on the same topic have been proposed in Georgia, New Mexico, California, Maine, Maryland,
619:
Researchers have also suggested that the manner in which photos or individuals chosen for a lineup are presented can be key to the reliability of an identification. Specifically, lineups should be conducted sequentially, rather than simultaneously. In other words, each member of a given lineup
500:
But she was wrong, as DNA results eventually showed. She was presented with her actual attacker during a second trial a year after the attack, but at the time she said that she had never seen that man before in her life. She remained convinced that Cotton had attacked her. It was not until much
471:
Historically, Brennan said that "All the evidence points rather strikingly to the conclusion that there is almost nothing more convincing than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says 'That's the one!'" Another commentator observed that the eyewitness
989:
If there is no particular suspect, a witness may be shown photographs or be taken to a neighbourhood in the hope that he recognises the perpetrator. Photographs should be shown to potential witnesses individually (to prevent collusion) and once a positive identification has been made, no other
908:
Although instructions informing jurors of certain eyewitness identification mistakes are a plausible solution, recent discoveries in research have shown that this gives a neutral effect, "studies suggest that general jury instructions informing jurors of the unreliability of eyewitness
891:
In those states where expert testimony on eyewitness reliability is not allowed, it is typically on grounds that the various factors are within the common sense of the average juror, and thus not the proper topic of expert testimony. To further expand jurors are " likely to put faith in the
594:
Once police have identified a suspect, they will typically place that individual into either a live or photo lineup, along with a set of "fillers." Researchers and the DOJ guidelines recommend, as a preliminary matter, that the fillers be "known innocent" non-suspects. This way, if a witness
1027:
The judge should direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification by each witness came to be made and remind the jury of any specific weaknesses in the identification evidence. If the witnesses recognised a known defendant, the judge should remind the jury that
781:
A variety of other factors affect the reliability of eyewitness identification. The elderly and young children tend to recall faces less accurately, as compared to young adults. Intelligence, education, gender, and race, on the other hand, appear to have no effect (with the exception of the
803:
The legal standards addressing the treatment of eyewitness testimony as evidence in criminal trials vary widely across the United States on issues ranging from the admissibility of eyewitness testimony as evidence, the admissibility and scope of expert testimony on the factors affecting its
790:
witnesses observe the theft of an item known to be of high value, studies have shown that their higher degree of attention can result in a higher level of identification accuracy (assuming the absence of contravening factors, such as the presence of a weapon, stress, etc.).
1035:
The trial judge should identify to the jury the evidence which he adjudges is capable of supporting the evidence of identification. If there is any evidence or circumstances which the jury might think was supporting when it did not have this quality, the judge should say
876:
have shown that confidence is unreliable as a predictor of accuracy. Social scientists and legal scholars have also expressed concern that "the list as a whole is substantially incomplete," thereby opening the courthouse doors to the admission of unreliable evidence.
951:
formal identification procedures in Pace Code D, para 3.5–3.10 is normally used, unless it would serve no useful purpose (e.g. because the suspect was known to the witnesses or if there was no reasonable possibility that a witness could make an identification at all).
595:
selects someone other than the suspect, the unreliability of that witness's memory is revealed. The lineup procedure can serve as a test of the witness's memory, with clear "wrong" answers. If more than one suspect is included in the lineup – as in the
640:"the design of the project contained so many fundamental flaws that it is fair to wonder whether its sole purpose was to inject confusion into the debate about the efficacy of sequential double-blind procedures and to thereby prevent adoption of the reforms."
671:
simultaneous/sequential lineups in police departments in Connecticut and Washington, D.C. That study had been solicited by DOJ, but was unexpectedly cancelled in August 2009 due to "a low likelihood of success." The Urban Institute is seeking other funding.
563:
Eyewitness researchers know that the police lineup is, at center, a psychological experiment designed to test the ability of a witness to recall the identity of the perpetrator of a crime. As such, it is recommended that police lineups be conducted in
497:
trial. She was positive it was him, without any doubt in her mind. "I was sure. I knew it. I had picked the right guy, and he was going to go to jail. If there was the possibility of a death sentence, I wanted him to die. I wanted to flip the switch."
921:
exists offering tests and demonstrations to prove or show during trial that eyewitnesses can be unaware of people and objects, make incorrect judgments, misremember and invent memories, and differently perceive and misperceive objects and events,
464:, 388 U.S. 218 (1967), the Court has recognized the inherently suspect qualities of eyewitness identification evidence, and described the evidence as "notoriously unreliable", while noting that juries were highly receptive to it. Similarly, in the
633:
was superior to the procedures recommended by researchers to reduce false identifications. The mainstream media spotlighted the report, suggesting that three decades' worth of otherwise uncontroverted social science had been called into question.
522:
have been termed "system variables" by social scientists researching this systemic problem. "System variables are those that affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and over which the criminal justice system has (or can have) control."
736:. This phenomenon has been studied at length by eyewitness researchers. They have consistently found that eyewitnesses recall the identity of a perpetrator less accurately when a weapon was known to be present during the incident. Psychologist
765:" in nature: it begins to drop off sharply within 20 minutes following the initial encoding, and continues to do so exponentially until it begins to level off around the second day at a dramatically reduced level of accuracy. As noted above,
568:
fashion, like any scientific experiment, in order to avert the possibility that inadvertent cues from the lineup administrator will suggest the "correct" answer and thereby subvert the independent memory of the witness. The occurrence of
485:
on the rapist's face. I looked at his hairline; I looked for scars, for tattoos, for anything that would help me identify him. When and if I survived the attack, I was going to make sure that he was put in prison and he was going to rot."
822:
with respect to eyewitness identification. Based on the master's report the New Jersey court issued a decision on August 22, 2011 which requires closer examination of the reliability of eyewitness testimony by trial courts in New Jersey.
1631:
895:
Polling data and other surveys of juror knowledge appear to contradict this proposition, however, revealing substantial misconceptions on a number of discrete topics that have been the subject of significant study by social scientists.
833:
Held: The Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law
829:, a case which raised similar issues, was decided January 11, 2012 by the U.S. Supreme Court. which in an 8–1 decision decided that judicial examination of eye-witness testimony was required only in the case of police misconduct.
692:"Estimator variables" – that is, factors connected to the witness or to the circumstances surrounding their observation of an individual in an effort at identification can affect the reliability of identification.
480:
The Innocence Project has facilitated the exoneration of 214 men who were wrongfully convicted of crimes as a result of faulty eyewitness evidence. A number of these cases have received substantial attention from the media.
624:
a pilot study was conducted in Minnesota on this hypothesis. Results showed that the sequential procedure was superior as a means of improving identification accuracy and reducing the occurrence of false identifications.
444:
states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing." This non-profit organization uses
545:
Given the common, good faith occurrence of police lineups that do not include the actual perpetrator of a crime, other procedural measures must be undertaken to minimize the likelihood of an inaccurate identification.
756:
Some researchers state that the rate at which eyewitness memory declines is swift, and the drop-off is sharp, in contrast to the more common view that memory degrades slowly and consistently as time passes. The
684:
their own words, be taken immediately following an identification. Any future statement of confidence or certainty is widely regarded as unreliable, as many intervening factors can distort it as time passes.
611:
memory of the actual perpetrator. Researchers have noted that this rule is particularly important when the witness's description includes unique features, such as tattoos, scars, unusual hairstyles, etc.
1846:
939:
1628:
659:
the lineup does not know which person or photo is the suspect). The critics claim that the results cannot be compared because one method was not double-blind while the other was double-blind.
917:
Demonstratives about eyewitness accuracy and reliability can be used as illustrative aids in opening statements and closing arguments, and with expert testimony and eyewitness testimony. A
773:
be expected to be more reliable than one based on a combination of factors, such as ethnicity, estimated age, estimated height, estimated weight, general body type, hair color, dress, etc.
573:" is well documented across the sciences. Researchers recommend that police lineups be conducted by someone who is not connected to the case and is unaware of the identity of the suspect.
538:
When the actual perpetrator is not included in the lineup, research has shown that the police suspect faces a significantly heightened risk of being incorrectly identified as the culprit.
740:
used eye-tracking technology to monitor this effect. She found that the presence of a weapon draws a witness's visual focus away from other subjects, such as the perpetrator's face.
468:, the Criminal Law Review Committee, writing in 1971, stated that cases of mistaken identification "constitute by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong convictions".
135:
1782:
1627:, 46 Jurimetrics 177, 197 (2006) (citing poll finding over two-thirds of potential District of Columbia jurors do not understand the effects of stress on memory), available
1847:
Syllabus author is anonymous; decision, joined by 6 other justices, was delivered by Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Justice Thomas concurring and Justice Sotomayor dissenting.
452:
Even before DNA testing revealed wrongful convictions based on eyewitness identifications, courts recognized and discussed the limits of eyewitness testimony. The late
2170:
1487:
814:
1064:
707:
of any one race are demonstrably deficient in accurately identifying members of another race. The effect appears to be true regardless of the races in question.
644:
Seeking information on the data and methodology underlying the report, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) filed a lawsuit under the
667:
is superior to the other. What it does not provide is a clear reason why, because the effect of "double-blind" was not tested for the simultaneous lineups.
1226:
663:
by most police departments, the Illinois study provides an abundance of useful data which, at this point, seems to show that neither of the methods used
1002:, the trial judge may exclude evidence if it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings if it were admitted. Breach of Code D does
501:
later, after Cotton had served 11 years in prison and was exonerated, by DNA testing, for wrongful conviction, that Thompson realized she was mistaken.
974:: If it is more suitable than video identification or an identification parade, the witness may be asked to pick a person out after observing a group.
1886:
1890:
1504:
1462:
1714:, 56 Amer. Psychologist 405, 413–14 (2001) (finding a "strong consensus" among researchers on the sharp and rapid decline of eyewitness memory)
1516:
Press Release, "National Legal Group Files Lawsuit Challenging Illinois Police Defense of Traditional Lineups," NACDL, Feb. 8, 2007, available
2176:
504:
Her memory had been mistaken. Cases such as hers have resulted in the emergence of a field within cognitive science dedicated to the study of
1209:, mouse over "Know the Cases," then click "Search Profiles," then search cases with "Eyewitness Misidentification" as the Contributing Cause.
542:
not present in the lineup, the police suspect is often the person who best fits the description, hence his or her selection for the lineup.
1905:
1072:
1501:
What's the Matter With Illinois? How an Opportunity Was Squandered to Conduct an Important Study on Eyewitness Identification Procedures
645:
581:
Asking an eyewitness their confidence in their selection with a doubleblind process can improve the accuracy of eyewitness selection.
2038:
1979:
1520:
1456:
Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind Identification Procedures
1094:
1793:
1113:
1946:
Manson v. Brathwaite Revisited: Toward a New Rule of Decision For Due Process Challenges to Eyewitness Identification Procedures
412:
1819:
1086:
999:
936:
1547:
525:
Acknowledging the importance of such procedural precautions as recommended by leading eyewitness researchers, in 1999 the
472:
identification of a person as a perpetrator was persuasive to jurors even when "far outweighed by evidence of innocence."
732:
The known presence of a weapon has also been shown to reduce the accuracy of eyewitness recall, often referred to as the
526:
2039:"Drawing on Daubert: Bringing Reliability to the Forefront in the Admissibility of Eyewitness Identification Testimony"
1980:"Drawing on Daubert: Bringing Reliability to the Forefront in the Admissibility of Eyewitness Identification Testimony"
1081:
596:
453:
449:
to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.
1470:
1583:
The Damaging Effect of Confirming Feedback on the Relation Between Eyewitness Certainty and Identification Accuracy
909:
identifications are not effective in helping jurors to evaluate the reliability of the identification before them"
1647:
599:, for example – then the lineup becomes tantamount to a multiple choice test with no wrong answer.
2171:
The Illinois Field Study: A Significant Contribution to Understanding Real World Eyewitness Identification Issues
1565:
The Illinois Field Study: A Significant Contribution to Understanding Real World Eyewitness Identification Issues
20:
980:: If the other methods are unsuitable, the witness may be asked whether a certain person is the person they saw.
2009:
Eyewitness Memory is Still Not Common Sense: Comparing Jurors, Judges and Law Enforcement to Eyewitness Experts
701:
1311:
1443:
1741:
320:
285:
188:
1142:
968:: If it is more practicable and suitable than video identification, an identification parade may be used.
1024:
that a mistaken witness can be a convincing one and that a number of such witnesses can all be mistaken.
2127:
607:"Known innocent" fillers should be selected to match the original description provided by the witness.
405:
295:
2192:
1459:
198:
1644:
District of Columbia Public Defender Survey: What Do Jurors Understand About Eyewitness Reliability?
325:
1677:
457:
1965:
1069:
892:
expert's testimony or even to overestimate the significance of results that the expert reports"
808:, generally considered a leading court with respect to criminal law, a report was prepared by a
825:
570:
280:
140:
102:
82:
2155:
1879:
1661:
Accuracy of Eyewitness Memory for Persons Encountered During Exposure to Highly Intense Stress
1341:
Wixted, John T.; Mickes, Laura; Dunn, John C.; Clark, Steven E.; Wells, William (2016-01-12).
2197:
1440:
Improving Eyewitness Identifications: Hennepin County's Blind Sequential Lineup Pilot Project
398:
261:
251:
155:
125:
120:
838:
The preeminent role of the jury in evaluating questionable evidence was cited by the court.
1609:
Thirty Years of Investigating the Own-Race Bias in Memory for Faces: A Meta-Analytic Review
1354:
959:
860:
636:
Criticism of the report and its underlying methodology soon emerged. One critic said that
236:
221:
164:
77:
72:
57:
2177:
Examining the Responses to the Illinois Study on Double-Blind Sequential Lineup Procedures
1848:
1327:
8:
2202:
2078:, Crim LR 174 (Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Potter LJ 2003).
1712:
On the "General Acceptance" of Eyewitness Testimony Research: A New Survey of the Experts
1517:
241:
1358:
1091:
492:
Structure of DNA, which has played a role in exonerations of wrongfully convicted people
1962:
What is Wrong With the Manson v. Brathwaite Test of Eyewitness Identification Accuracy?
1385:
1342:
855:
762:
377:
226:
183:
145:
1131:
1867:
1390:
1372:
783:
766:
505:
441:
342:
305:
300:
246:
231:
130:
1380:
1362:
1323:
819:
793:
758:
737:
337:
315:
290:
216:
193:
173:
67:
2173:: The original journal article of the "Illinois Report" by S.H. Mecklenburg et al.
1286:
Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads
1028:
mistakes even in the recognition of relatives or close friends are sometimes made.
871:
standard, however. According to legal scholars, "the rule of decision set out in
1635:
1551:
1544:
1524:
1466:
1254:
1154:
1103:
1098:
1076:
1059:
652:
310:
178:
111:
97:
854:
standard governing the admissibility of eyewitness evidence is set forth in the
884:
809:
465:
256:
150:
29:
1568:
1343:"Estimating the reliability of eyewitness identifications from police lineups"
2186:
1435:
1376:
1087:
Dr. Nancy Steblay's website, with links to substantial eyewitness ID research
1082:
Dr. Steven Penrod's website, with links to substantial eyewitness ID research
918:
92:
62:
2024:
1367:
804:
reliability, and the propriety of jury instructions on the same factors. In
651:
In July 2007, a "blue ribbon" panel of eminent psychologists, including one
2088:
Mack, Jon; Sampson, Richard (2 February 2013). "Facebook Identifications".
1394:
733:
687:
565:
446:
430:
386:
372:
851:
648:
to gain access to the unreleased information. That suit remains pending.
2154:
NACDL's page outlining state-by-state legislative reform efforts, found
1742:
https://www.cs.dm.u-tokai.ac.jp/Publication/csv/pdfs/hypothesis-afss.pdf
805:
352:
331:
1625:
Beyond the Ken? Testing Jurors' Understanding of Eyewitness Evidence
1032:
evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification.
381:
52:
1221:
Jennifer Thompson, "I Was Certain, but I Was Wrong," June 18, 2000,
1114:
American Psychology-Law Society's page on eyewitness ID publications
2179:: Critical evaluation of the "Illinois Report" by Zack L. Winzeler.
516:
362:
748:
1060:
Department of Justice Guidelines for Conducting Lineup Procedures
674:
529:
published a set of best practices for conducting police lineups.
434:
270:
207:
818:
which comprehensively researched published literature and heard
794:
The law of eyewitness identification evidence in criminal trials
711:
surrounded by members of the other race for their entire lives.
532:
1442:, 4 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol. & Ethics J. 381 (2006), available
488:
1206:
1109:
Dr. Solomon Fulero's website, with links to relevant documents
614:
437:"who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court".
1541:
Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field
769:
is increasingly susceptible to contamination as time passes.
508:
and the causes underlying its frequently recurring failures.
1906:"Eyewitness Evidence Needs No Special Cautions, Court Says"
1835:
troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications
1104:
Dr. Roy Malpass's Eyewitness ID Research Laboratory Website
367:
16:
Identification by a person who actually witnessed an event.
627:
558:
990:
witnesses should be shown the photograph of the suspect.
37:
1482:
Kate Zernike, "Study Fuels Debate Over Police Lineups,"
1108:
984:
1259:(pdf), United States Department of Justice (Oct. 1999)
945:
1340:
743:
589:
1183:, 449 U.S. 341, 352 (1982) (Brennan, J. dissenting).
475:
1820:"In New Jersey, Rules Are Changed on Witness IDs"
1708:Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology
1674:A Meta-Analytic Review of the Weapon Focus Effect
1663:, 27 Int'l J.L. & Psychiatry 265, 272 (2004).
2184:
1897:
1780:
1676:, 16 L. & Hum. Behav. 413 (1992), available
1256:Eyewitness Evidence, A Guide For Law Enforcement
935:Most identification procedures are regulated by
1854:. United States Supreme Court. p. Syllabus
1738:Can We Remember Faces Much Easier Than Numbers?
1347:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
1070:Website of eyewitness researcher Dr. Gary Wells
867:Certain criticisms have been waged against the
776:
695:
584:
1169:Criminal Law Review Committee Eleventh Report,
1055:Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, and others.
688:"Estimator variables" (circumstantial factors)
675:Post-lineup feedback and confidence statements
1792:. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Archived from
1607:Christian A. Meissner & John A. Brigham,
1469:(pdf); Addendum to Illinois Report available
761:" of eyewitness memory has been shown to be "
533:Culprit-present versus culprit-absent lineups
511:
406:
1736:Hiroaki Kikuchi & Shohachiro Nakanishi,
1535:
1533:
1288:, 22 L. & Hum. Behavior 603, 613 (1998).
2087:
2011:, 20 Applied Cognitive Psychol. 115 (2006).
1903:
1611:, 7 Psychol. Pub. Policy & L. 3 (2001).
1557:
615:Simultaneous versus sequential presentation
1889:) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
1567:, 32 Law & Human Behavior (2008)22–27
1543:, L. Hum. Behavior (July 2007), available
1217:
1215:
993:
954:The formal identification procedures are:
812:during a remand proceeding in the case of
549:
413:
399:
1885:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1530:
1384:
1366:
1309:
602:
1840:
1601:
747:
487:
1944:, Timothy O'Toole & Giovanna Shay,
1706:note 11, at 621–22; Herman Ebbinghaus,
1646:, Champion 28 (April 2005), available
1503:, Champion 16 (August 2006), available
1237:
1235:
1212:
727:
576:
2185:
2064:, Crim LR 643 (1995).
2049:(4): 1205–1242 – via heinonline.
2036:
2023:, 727 A.2d 457 (N.J. 1999), available
1990:(4): 1205–1242 – via heinonline.
1977:
1817:
1653:
1148:
1065:NLADA resource on Eyewitness ID Issues
1010:
517:"System variables" (police procedures)
460:observed in 1980 that "At least since
1328:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0516-17
1000:Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
937:Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
919:repository of video illustrative aids
1818:Weiser, Benjamin (August 24, 2011).
1585:, 87 J. Applied Psychol. 112 (2002).
1245:, 54 Annu. Rev. Psychol. 277 (2003).
1232:
985:Where there is no particular suspect
925:
899:
1948:, 41 Valparaiso L. Rev. 109 (2006).
1092:NACDL's Eyewitness ID Resource page
946:Where there is a particular suspect
879:
13:
1781:Geoffrey Gaulkin (June 18, 2010).
1774:
1241:Gary Wells & Elizabeth Olson,
744:Rapid decline of eyewitness memory
597:2006 Duke University lacrosse case
14:
2214:
2164:
1693:11 L. & Hum. Behav. 55 (1987)
1040:
912:
1904:Adam Liptak (January 11, 2012).
1691:Some Facts About "Weapon Focus,"
845:
2145:
2133:
2120:
2100:
2081:
2067:
2053:
2030:
2014:
1994:
1971:
1951:
1935:
1923:
1811:
1762:
1746:
1730:
1717:
1696:
1683:
1666:
1614:
1588:
1572:
1510:
1493:
1476:
1458:("Illinois Report"), available
1449:
1429:
1413:
1401:
1334:
1303:
1291:
1275:
1262:
1248:
1132:Law.com Legal Dictionary Online
476:Known cases of eyewitness error
21:Identification (disambiguation)
2130:of the Judicial Studies Board.
1783:"Report of the Special Master"
1659:Charles A. Morgan III et al.,
1312:"Are You Sure That's the Guy?"
1199:
1186:
1174:
1162:
1143:"Eyewitness Misidentification"
1136:
1125:
930:
702:Cross-race identification bias
433:, evidence is received from a
1:
1702:See, e.g. Gary Wells et al.,
1563:Mecklenberg, Bailey, Larson,
1310:Greenwood, Veronique (2016).
1119:
628:"Illinois Report" controversy
559:"Blind" lineup administration
1797:(report of a special master)
1710:(1885/1913); Kassin et al.,
1689:Elizabeth F. Loftus et al.,
1539:Daniel L. Schachter et al.,
777:Other circumstantial factors
696:Cross-racial identifications
585:Lineup structure and content
321:Declaration against interest
189:Self-authenticating document
7:
10:
2219:
2090:Criminal Law & Justice
1486:April 19, 2006, available
699:
646:Freedom of Information Act
512:Causes of eyewitness error
18:
2037:Walker, Suedabeh (2013).
1978:Walker, Suedabeh (2013).
1045:
1019:a direction to the jury:
714:
427:eyewitness identification
199:Hague Evidence Convention
88:Eyewitness identification
2007:note 17; Benton et al.,
1849:"Perry v. New Hampshire"
1672:Nancy Mehrkens Steblay,
1316:Scientific American Mind
1207:www.innocenceproject.org
590:"Known innocent" fillers
326:Present sense impression
136:Public policy exclusions
1790:New Jersey v. Henderson
1368:10.1073/pnas.1516814112
994:Breaches of PACE Code D
815:New Jersey v. Henderson
798:
720:not take into account.
550:Pre-lineup instructions
458:William J. Brennan, Jr.
1581:Amy Bradfield et al.,
836:
826:Perry v. New Hampshire
753:
642:
603:Filler characteristics
493:
103:Consciousness of guilt
1932:, 432 U.S. 98 (1977).
1158:, 449 U.S. 341 (1980)
966:Identification parade
831:
751:
734:"weapon-focus effect"
638:
527:Department of Justice
491:
462:United States v. Wade
252:Recorded recollection
2111:Alexander and McGill
1960:at 113; Gary Wells,
1723:M.P. Gerrie et al.,
1642:Timothy P. O'Toole,
1499:Timothy P. O'Toole,
1243:Eyewitness Testimony
972:Group identification
960:Video identification
861:Manson v. Brathwaite
728:Presence of a weapon
577:Confidence judgement
555:an innocent person.
286:in United States law
19:For other uses, see
1426:note 11, at 614–15.
1359:2016PNAS..113..304W
1284:Gary Wells et al.,
1268:Wells & Olson,
1194:Eyewitness Evidence
998:Under s. 78 of the
126:Laying a foundation
2128:specimen direction
2003:Schmechel et al.,
1910:The New Yort Times
1878:has generic name (
1824:The New York Times
1634:2007-09-28 at the
1623:Schmechel et al.,
1550:2007-12-04 at the
1523:2007-08-04 at the
1465:2007-08-13 at the
1192:Elizabeth Loftus,
1181:Watkins v. Souders
1156:Watkins v. Sowders
1097:2007-09-27 at the
1075:2009-02-04 at the
856:U.S. Supreme Court
754:
665:in that experiment
494:
454:U.S. Supreme Court
382:trusts and estates
262:Dead Man's Statute
227:Direct examination
184:Best evidence rule
2043:Emory Law Journal
1984:Emory Law Journal
926:England and Wales
900:Jury instructions
784:cross-race effect
767:eyewitness memory
752:Eyewitness Memory
571:experimenter bias
506:eyewitness memory
442:Innocence Project
423:
422:
343:Implied assertion
306:Dying declaration
301:Excited utterance
247:Proffer agreement
232:Cross-examination
45:Types of evidence
2210:
2193:Criminal justice
2159:
2149:
2143:
2137:
2131:
2124:
2118:
2113:EWCA Crim 2768;
2109:EWCA Crim 1413;
2104:
2098:
2097:
2085:
2079:
2077:
2071:
2065:
2063:
2057:
2051:
2050:
2034:
2028:
2021:State v. Cromedy
2018:
2012:
1998:
1992:
1991:
1975:
1969:
1955:
1949:
1939:
1933:
1927:
1921:
1920:
1918:
1916:
1901:
1895:
1894:
1883:
1877:
1873:
1871:
1863:
1861:
1859:
1853:
1844:
1838:
1837:
1832:
1830:
1815:
1809:
1808:
1806:
1804:
1798:
1787:
1778:
1772:
1766:
1760:
1750:
1744:
1734:
1728:
1721:
1715:
1700:
1694:
1687:
1681:
1670:
1664:
1657:
1651:
1618:
1612:
1605:
1599:
1598:note 11, 629–30.
1592:
1586:
1576:
1570:
1561:
1555:
1537:
1528:
1514:
1508:
1497:
1491:
1480:
1474:
1453:
1447:
1433:
1427:
1417:
1411:
1405:
1399:
1398:
1388:
1370:
1338:
1332:
1331:
1307:
1301:
1295:
1289:
1279:
1273:
1266:
1260:
1252:
1246:
1239:
1230:
1219:
1210:
1203:
1197:
1190:
1184:
1178:
1172:
1166:
1160:
1152:
1146:
1140:
1134:
1129:
885:Expert testimony
880:Expert testimony
842:with children”
820:expert testimony
759:forgetting curve
738:Elizabeth Loftus
415:
408:
401:
338:Learned treatise
316:Ancient document
296:Business records
194:Ancient document
174:Chain of custody
26:
25:
2218:
2217:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2183:
2182:
2167:
2162:
2150:
2146:
2138:
2134:
2125:
2121:
2105:
2101:
2086:
2082:
2073:
2072:
2068:
2059:
2058:
2054:
2035:
2031:
2019:
2015:
1999:
1995:
1976:
1972:
1956:
1952:
1940:
1936:
1928:
1924:
1914:
1912:
1902:
1898:
1884:
1875:
1874:
1865:
1864:
1857:
1855:
1851:
1845:
1841:
1828:
1826:
1816:
1812:
1802:
1800:
1799:on June 1, 2011
1796:
1785:
1779:
1775:
1767:
1763:
1759:note 4, 280–81.
1751:
1747:
1740:– available at
1735:
1731:
1722:
1718:
1701:
1697:
1688:
1684:
1671:
1667:
1658:
1654:
1636:Wayback Machine
1619:
1615:
1606:
1602:
1593:
1589:
1577:
1573:
1562:
1558:
1552:Wayback Machine
1538:
1531:
1525:Wayback Machine
1515:
1511:
1498:
1494:
1484:New York Times,
1481:
1477:
1467:Wayback Machine
1454:
1450:
1434:
1430:
1418:
1414:
1406:
1402:
1339:
1335:
1308:
1304:
1296:
1292:
1280:
1276:
1272:note 4, at 286.
1267:
1263:
1253:
1249:
1240:
1233:
1220:
1213:
1204:
1200:
1191:
1187:
1179:
1175:
1167:
1163:
1153:
1149:
1141:
1137:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1099:Wayback Machine
1077:Wayback Machine
1048:
1043:
1016:
996:
987:
948:
933:
928:
915:
902:
882:
848:
801:
796:
779:
746:
730:
717:
704:
698:
690:
677:
630:
617:
605:
592:
587:
579:
561:
552:
535:
519:
514:
478:
419:
311:Party admission
179:Judicial notice
121:Burden of proof
63:Real (physical)
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2216:
2206:
2205:
2200:
2195:
2181:
2180:
2174:
2166:
2165:External links
2163:
2161:
2160:
2144:
2132:
2119:
2117:EWCA Crim 1845
2107:R v McCullough
2099:
2080:
2066:
2052:
2029:
2013:
1993:
1970:
1950:
1934:
1922:
1896:
1852:(Slip opinion)
1839:
1810:
1773:
1761:
1755:Wells et al.,
1745:
1729:
1725:False Memories
1716:
1695:
1682:
1665:
1652:
1613:
1600:
1594:Wells et al.,
1587:
1571:
1556:
1529:
1509:
1492:
1475:
1448:
1428:
1422:Wells et al.,
1412:
1400:
1353:(2): 304–309.
1333:
1302:
1290:
1274:
1261:
1247:
1231:
1223:New York Times
1211:
1198:
1185:
1173:
1161:
1147:
1135:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1111:
1106:
1101:
1089:
1084:
1079:
1067:
1062:
1047:
1044:
1042:
1041:Reform efforts
1039:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1015:
1009:
995:
992:
986:
983:
982:
981:
975:
969:
963:
947:
944:
932:
929:
927:
924:
914:
913:Demonstratives
911:
901:
898:
881:
878:
847:
844:
810:special master
800:
797:
795:
792:
778:
775:
745:
742:
729:
726:
716:
713:
700:Main article:
697:
694:
689:
686:
676:
673:
653:Nobel Laureate
629:
626:
616:
613:
604:
601:
591:
588:
586:
583:
578:
575:
560:
557:
551:
548:
534:
531:
518:
515:
513:
510:
477:
474:
466:United Kingdom
421:
420:
418:
417:
410:
403:
395:
392:
391:
390:
389:
384:
375:
370:
365:
357:
356:
348:
347:
346:
345:
340:
335:
328:
323:
318:
313:
308:
303:
298:
293:
288:
283:
281:in English law
275:
274:
273:and exceptions
267:
266:
265:
264:
259:
257:Expert witness
254:
249:
244:
239:
234:
229:
224:
219:
211:
210:
204:
203:
202:
201:
196:
191:
186:
181:
176:
168:
167:
165:Authentication
161:
160:
159:
158:
153:
148:
143:
138:
133:
128:
123:
115:
114:
108:
107:
106:
105:
100:
95:
90:
85:
80:
75:
70:
65:
60:
55:
47:
46:
42:
41:
33:
32:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2215:
2204:
2201:
2199:
2196:
2194:
2191:
2190:
2188:
2178:
2175:
2172:
2169:
2168:
2157:
2153:
2148:
2141:
2140:R v. Turnbull
2136:
2129:
2123:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2103:
2095:
2091:
2084:
2076:
2070:
2062:
2056:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2033:
2026:
2022:
2017:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1997:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1974:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1954:
1947:
1943:
1938:
1931:
1926:
1911:
1907:
1900:
1892:
1888:
1881:
1876:|author=
1869:
1850:
1843:
1836:
1825:
1821:
1814:
1795:
1791:
1784:
1777:
1770:
1765:
1758:
1754:
1749:
1743:
1739:
1733:
1726:
1720:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1699:
1692:
1686:
1679:
1675:
1669:
1662:
1656:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1610:
1604:
1597:
1591:
1584:
1580:
1575:
1569:
1566:
1560:
1553:
1549:
1546:
1542:
1536:
1534:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1513:
1506:
1502:
1496:
1489:
1485:
1479:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1461:
1457:
1452:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1436:Amy Klobuchar
1432:
1425:
1421:
1416:
1409:
1404:
1396:
1392:
1387:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1369:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1337:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1306:
1299:
1294:
1287:
1283:
1278:
1271:
1265:
1258:
1257:
1251:
1244:
1238:
1236:
1228:
1225:. (Archived
1224:
1218:
1216:
1208:
1202:
1195:
1189:
1182:
1177:
1170:
1165:
1159:
1157:
1151:
1144:
1139:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1102:
1100:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1080:
1078:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1013:
1008:
1005:
1001:
991:
979:
978:Confrontation
976:
973:
970:
967:
964:
962:
961:
957:
956:
955:
952:
943:
941:
938:
923:
920:
910:
906:
897:
893:
889:
886:
877:
874:
870:
865:
863:
862:
857:
853:
846:Admissibility
843:
839:
835:
830:
828:
827:
821:
817:
816:
811:
807:
791:
787:
786:, as above).
785:
774:
770:
768:
764:
763:Ebbinghausian
760:
750:
741:
739:
735:
725:
721:
712:
708:
703:
693:
685:
681:
672:
668:
666:
660:
656:
654:
649:
647:
641:
637:
634:
625:
621:
612:
608:
600:
598:
582:
574:
572:
567:
556:
547:
543:
539:
530:
528:
523:
509:
507:
502:
498:
490:
486:
482:
473:
469:
467:
463:
459:
455:
450:
448:
443:
438:
436:
432:
428:
416:
411:
409:
404:
402:
397:
396:
394:
393:
388:
385:
383:
379:
376:
374:
371:
369:
366:
364:
361:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
349:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
333:
329:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
312:
309:
307:
304:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
287:
284:
282:
279:
278:
277:
276:
272:
269:
268:
263:
260:
258:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
238:
235:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:
220:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
209:
206:
205:
200:
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
172:
171:
170:
169:
166:
163:
162:
157:
154:
152:
149:
147:
144:
142:
139:
137:
134:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:
119:
118:
117:
116:
113:
110:
109:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
93:Genetic (DNA)
91:
89:
86:
84:
83:Demonstrative
81:
79:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
64:
61:
59:
56:
54:
51:
50:
49:
48:
44:
43:
39:
35:
34:
31:
28:
27:
22:
2198:Criminal law
2151:
2147:
2139:
2135:
2122:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2093:
2089:
2083:
2074:
2069:
2060:
2055:
2046:
2042:
2032:
2020:
2016:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1987:
1983:
1973:
1964:, available
1961:
1957:
1953:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1929:
1925:
1913:. Retrieved
1909:
1899:
1856:. Retrieved
1842:
1834:
1827:. Retrieved
1823:
1813:
1801:. Retrieved
1794:the original
1789:
1776:
1768:
1764:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1737:
1732:
1724:
1719:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1698:
1690:
1685:
1673:
1668:
1660:
1655:
1643:
1639:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1608:
1603:
1595:
1590:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1564:
1559:
1540:
1512:
1500:
1495:
1483:
1478:
1455:
1451:
1439:
1431:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1407:
1403:
1350:
1346:
1336:
1319:
1315:
1305:
1297:
1293:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1269:
1264:
1255:
1250:
1242:
1222:
1201:
1193:
1188:
1180:
1176:
1168:
1164:
1155:
1150:
1138:
1127:
1053:
1049:
1017:
1011:
1003:
997:
988:
977:
971:
965:
958:
953:
949:
934:
916:
907:
903:
894:
890:
883:
872:
868:
866:
859:
850:The federal
849:
840:
837:
834:enforcement.
832:
824:
813:
802:
788:
780:
771:
755:
731:
722:
718:
709:
705:
691:
682:
678:
669:
664:
661:
657:
650:
643:
639:
635:
631:
622:
618:
609:
606:
593:
580:
566:double-blind
562:
553:
544:
540:
536:
524:
520:
503:
499:
495:
483:
479:
470:
461:
451:
447:DNA evidence
439:
431:criminal law
426:
424:
387:Criminal law
330:
156:Similar fact
87:
36:Part of the
1915:January 12,
1858:January 12,
931:PACE Code D
852:due process
291:Confessions
242:Impeachment
131:Materiality
78:Inculpatory
73:Exculpatory
58:Documentary
2203:Eyewitness
2187:Categories
2061:R v. Allen
2001:See, e.g.,
1829:August 25,
1803:August 25,
1579:See, e.g.,
1410:at 625-26.
1282:See, e.g.,
1120:References
1014:directions
806:New Jersey
353:common law
332:Res gestae
217:Competence
141:Spoliation
2115:DZ and JZ
1942:See, e.g.
1377:0027-8424
1322:(3): 17.
1196:9 (1979).
1171:Cmnd 4991
222:Privilege
208:Witnesses
146:Character
112:Relevance
53:Testimony
2126:See the
1868:cite web
1640:see also
1632:Archived
1548:Archived
1521:Archived
1463:Archived
1438:et al.,
1395:26699467
1095:Archived
1073:Archived
1012:Turnbull
858:case of
456:Justice
373:Property
363:Contract
237:Redirect
30:Evidence
1958:See id.
1771:at 282.
1408:See id.
1386:4720310
1355:Bibcode
1300:at 623.
435:witness
271:Hearsay
68:Digital
2142:QB 224
2075:R v. Z
1930:Manson
1680:(pdf).
1554:(pdf).
1473:(pdf).
1446:(pdf).
1393:
1383:
1375:
940:Code D
873:Manson
869:Manson
715:Stress
351:Other
40:series
2096:: 77.
2005:supra
1786:(PDF)
1757:supra
1704:supra
1596:supra
1424:supra
1270:supra
1036:so...
429:, in
378:Wills
355:areas
151:Habit
2156:here
2025:here
1966:here
1917:2012
1891:link
1887:link
1880:help
1860:2012
1831:2011
1805:2011
1678:here
1648:here
1629:here
1545:here
1518:here
1505:here
1488:here
1471:here
1460:here
1444:here
1391:PMID
1373:ISSN
1227:here
1205:See
1046:U.S.
799:U.S.
440:The
368:Tort
98:Lies
2152:See
2094:177
1769:Id.
1753:See
1621:See
1420:See
1381:PMC
1363:doi
1351:113
1324:doi
1298:Id.
1004:not
425:In
38:law
2189::
2092:.
2047:62
2045:.
2041:.
1988:62
1986:.
1982:.
1908:.
1872::
1870:}}
1866:{{
1833:.
1822:.
1788:.
1638:;
1532:^
1389:.
1379:.
1371:.
1361:.
1349:.
1345:.
1320:27
1318:.
1314:.
1234:^
1229:.)
1214:^
942:.
380:,
2158:.
2027:.
1968:.
1919:.
1893:)
1882:)
1862:.
1807:.
1650:.
1527:.
1507:.
1490:.
1397:.
1365::
1357::
1330:.
1326::
1145:.
757:"
569:"
414:e
407:t
400:v
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.