Content uploaded by Christian A. Meissner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian A. Meissner on Jul 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
explanation or excuse for the disturbance. As noted
above, the reasonableness of such explanation or
excuse should be determined, under the law, from
the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situa-
tion, under the circumstances as he or she believed
them to be. It is clear, however, that having killed
while in the throes of an extreme emotional distur-
bance does not necessarily merit the EED defense. If
the trier of fact determines that the defendant’s
extreme emotions—for example, a defendant’s
extreme rage—were not reasonable under the cir-
cumstances, then the EED defense should be, and
probably will be, denied.
Expert testimony supporting an EED defense is not
required to maintain the defense. However, mental
health professionals may and do testify as experts in
EED cases to help the trier of fact determine the pre-
cise nature of the defendant’s claimed EED at the time
of the crime(s) charged. It is questionable, however,
whether expert witnesses should address the issue of
whether a defendant’s EED was reasonable. Arguably,
at least, whether a defendant’s extreme emotional
reaction was reasonable under the circumstances is
not an issue regarding which mental health profes-
sionals have any special expertise and should best be
left to the trier of fact.
In evaluating a defendant’s emotional state at the
time of a crime, mental health professionals should
conduct the evaluation in the same manner as other
types of “mental state at the time of the offense” eval-
uations. Subjective information gathered from the
defendant and more objective, third-party sources
should be considered. The clinician should attempt to
identify the emotions that the defendant was experi-
encing at the time and whether the emotions were
indeed intense. The evaluator also should assess which
personality factors and/or mental conditions may have
contributed to the defendant’s supposedly aroused
feelings and how the situation(s) which the defendant
found himself or herself in may have elicited, or con-
tributed to, his or her emotionally aroused state (if any)
at the time of the charged criminal act.
Thomas R. Litwack and Stuart M. Kirschner
See also Criminal Responsibility, Assessment of; Criminal
Responsibility, Defenses and Standards; Expert
Psychological Testimony; Forensic Assessment;
Homicide, Psychology of; Insanity Defense Reform Act
(IDRA); Mental Health Law; M’Naghten Standard; Plea
Bargaining
Further Readings
Baze v. Parker, 371 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2004).
Hall, H., Mee, C., & Bresciani, P. (2001). Extreme mental or
emotional disturbance (EMED). Hawaii Law Review, 23,
431–477.
Kirschner, S. M., & Galperin, G. J. (2002). The defense of
extreme emotional disturbance in New York County: Pleas
and outcomes. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20,
47–50.
Kirschner, S. M., Litwack, T. R., & Galperin, G. J. (2004).
The defense of extreme emotional disturbance: A
qualitative analysis of cases in New York County.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 102–132.
People v. Cassasa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, cert. denied, 449
U.S. 842 (1980).
People v. Lyttle, 408 N.Y.S.2d 578 (1976).
People v. Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288 (1976), aff’d, 432
U.S. 197 (1977).
People v. Roche, 98 N.Y.2d 70 (2002).
EYEWITNESS DESCRIPTIONS,
ACCURACY OF
Police investigators will frequently request that a wit-
ness to a crime provide a verbal description of the
alleged perpetrator. Such descriptions provide critical
information that the police use throughout an investi-
gation, from the identification of possible suspects in
the vicinity of the crime, to the selection of pho-
tographs for mug books or lineup identification
arrays, to the construction of sketches or composites
that may be distributed to the general public. Although
descriptions of persons are often accurate, they unfor-
tunately also tend to lack sufficient detail to single out
an individual suspect.
Quantity Versus Quality
of Person Descriptions
Numerous archival studies have examined the quan-
tity and quality of person descriptions provided in real
cases. On average, witnesses tend to provide between
7 and 10 descriptors, and these descriptors tend to be
quite consistent (or congruent) with the defendant
who is subsequently identified. Unfortunately, the
vast majority of descriptors provided by witnesses are
general, including characteristics such as gender, race,
Eyewitness Descriptions, Accuracy of———285
E-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 285
age, height, weight, build, and complexion. Aspects of
the clothing worn by the perpetrator are also fre-
quently mentioned, but such features provide only a
brief opportunity for use in identifying a suspect in the
immediate aftermath of a crime. More specific facial
features (such as eye color, hair color or style, and
face shape) are rarely mentioned by witnesses, and
those that are included tend to focus on the upper por-
tions of the face. Taken together, witnesses appear to
provide an accurate general impression of the perpe-
trator but often fail to include more specific facial
details. Laboratory studies of witness descriptions
tend to concur with studies of real witnesses, indicat-
ing that although witnesses generally provide accurate
descriptions, they rarely include descriptors that
might be useful for individuating a target face.
Factors That Influence
Description Accuracy
Research suggests that a variety of cognitive and
social psychological factors can influence the accu-
racy of a witness’s description. First, encoding-based
factors are those that occur around the time of the crit-
ical event when the witness interacts with or views the
perpetrator. For example, low levels of illumination,
greater distance between the witness and the perpetra-
tor, a brief amount of time for viewing the perpetrator,
the experience of stress or anxiety on the part of the
witness (sometimes based on the presence of a
weapon), and a witness under the influence of alcohol
or drugs have all been shown to reduce the accuracy
and completeness of person descriptions. Second, a
subset of factors may occur between the time of
encoding and retrieval of the description (i.e., during
the retention interval) to influence the accuracy of a
witness’s description. For example, longer delays
between encoding and retrieval have been shown to
significantly reduce the quality of descriptions pro-
vided by witnesses, and exposure to “misinformation”
(as described later in this entry) has been demon-
strated to significantly impair a witness’s memory and
thereby his or her person description. Finally, certain
characteristics of the witness can influence the quality
of his or her person description. In particular, adults
tend to provide more detailed descriptions than do
children, though few differences in the accuracy of
person descriptions have been noted between these
two populations. Similarly, young adults are superior
at recalling person descriptions when compared with
middle-aged and elderly adults. Interestingly, unlike
the cross-race effect in face identification, few differ-
ences in accuracy have been noted when individuals
attempt to describe faces of another, less familiar race
or ethnicity.
Methods for Obtaining
Person Descriptions
Interviewing techniques such as feature checklists,
cued recall, and free-recall methods are well-
established practices of investigators for eliciting
person descriptions from eyewitnesses. Regardless
of which technique is used, however, acquiring a
complete yet accurate description has proven to be
very difficult. Probably, the most common method
for obtaining person descriptions is simply to ask the
witness to freely describe what they remember about
the perpetrator. While this free-recall technique reg-
ularly leads to highly accurate descriptions, critical
details of distinguishing characteristics are often
omitted from recall. Consequently, it is common
practice for investigators to ask more direct, follow-
up questions about specific features (e.g., “Do you
remember if the man had facial hair?”) or to attempt
to confirm the identity of a suspect that they have
identified (e.g., “Did the man have short black hair
and blue eyes?”). Studies suggest that such leading
questions can be very dangerous in that they can
“misinform” a witness’s original memory for the
perpetrator and subsequently impair his or her abil-
ity to both provide an accurate description and iden-
tify the perpetrator. Research on feature checklist
techniques similarly suggest that providing wit-
nesses with numerous descriptors regarding a face
can create confusion in memory and lead them to
report the presence of features that they are actually
unsure of. Finally, witnesses to a crime are often
asked to describe the perpetrator many times over the
course of an investigation. Research suggests that
this process of repeated retrieval can have both pos-
itive and negative effects. On the positive side,
repeatedly recalling information has been shown to
lead to increases in recalled information and to offer
some “protection” to the memory trace. Unfortunately,
erroneous details generated during early retrieval
episodes are also repeatedly recalled over time with
increased confidence.
Of the attempts to develop an interviewing tech-
nique to maximize description completeness without
286———Eyewitness Descriptions, Accuracy of
E-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 286
sacrificing accuracy, the Cognitive Interview is perhaps
the most well known. It has been shown to reliably
improve the completeness of person descriptions in
comparison with other “standard,” free-recall tech-
niques. Unfortunately, some studies have suggested
that the Cognitive Interview results in a slight cost in
description accuracy in the form of increased errors.
This has led some researchers to suggest that warning
witnesses to be cautious in providing person descriptors
may ultimately produce the greatest accuracy and
simultaneously protect the witness’s memory from the
confabulation of details.
The Description-Identification
Relationship
It seems intuitive that an eyewitness who is capable
of providing an accurate verbal description of a per-
petrator would also be able to subsequently identify
the perpetrator with greater accuracy; however, this
seemingly obvious relationship between description
and identification accuracy has not been demon-
strated consistently in the research literature. For
example, in what is known as the verbal overshad-
owing effect, researchers have demonstrated that ask-
ing participants to provide a verbal description of a
face can actually impair their ability to subsequently
identify that face from an array of similar pho-
tographs. In contrast, other studies have demon-
strated that recognition of faces can be facilitated (or
enhanced) by asking participants to provide a verbal
description prior to test. A small body of literature
has also assessed the specific relationship between
verbal description and identification ability in mem-
ory for faces using a variety of measures of descrip-
tion quality, including indices of accuracy (the
proportion of correct details reported), completeness
(the total number of features reported), the frequency
of correct and incorrect details that are reported, and
the degree of congruence between the description
provided and the face that is subsequently identified.
Overall, there appears to be a small but reliable cor-
relation between description accuracy and identifica-
tion accuracy, and this effect appears to be particularly
accounted for by the frequency of incorrect details
that are generated in a description. Given the small size
of the relationship between description and identifi-
cation of faces, it appears possible that both memory
tasks rely on a common underlying mental represen-
tation, yet also function on the basis of independent
processing orientations (i.e., featural vs. holistic pro-
cessing, respectively).
Kyle J. Susa and Christian A. Meissner
See also Children’s Testimony; Cognitive Interview;
Cross-Race Effect in Eyewitness Identification; Elderly
Eyewitnesses; Exposure Time and Eyewitness Memory;
Eyewitness Memory; Facial Composites; False Memories;
Neil v. Biggers Criteria for Evaluating Eyewitness
Identification; Postevent Information and Eyewitness
Memory; Repeated Recall; Stress and Eyewitness
Memory; Verbal Overshadowing and Eyewitness
Identification; Weapon Focus
Further Readings
Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). A meta-analysis of
the verbal overshadowing effect in face identification.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 603–616.
Meissner, C. A., Sporer, S. L., & Schooler, J. W. (2006).
Person descriptions as eyewitness evidence. In
R. Lindsay, D. Ross, J. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.),
Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sporer, S. L. (1996). Describing others: Psychological issues.
In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.),
Psychological issues in eyewitness identification
(pp. 53–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION:
EFFECT OF DISGUISES AND
APPEARANCE CHANGES
People who wear a disguise are attempting to conceal
their appearance or change how they look. Culprits may
wear any of a number of possible disguises for the com-
mission of a crime. For example, a bank robber may
wear a ski mask, or dark sunglasses and a knit cap.
Changes in facial characteristics may result not only
from a deliberate attempt to change one’s physical
appearance while committing a crime but also because,
with the passage of time, a culprit naturally ages and
thus may look different from when the crime took
place. Research has examined the influence of several
disguises and appearance alterations such as hairstyle
and facial hair changes, removal or addition of eye-
glasses, and the wearing of a cap. Overall, disguise and
Eyewitness Identification: Effect of Disguises and Appearance Changes———287
E-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 287