Professor testifies during Almaraz trial
Memory proves to be a key topic at Wednesday session
By Katie Pizza
Argus Observer
Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:16 AM PDT
Payette — A Portland-based Reed College psychology professor testified for the defense Wednesday in the Payette County murder trial of Hector Brito Almaraz.
Almaraz was arrested and later charged with first-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of Gabriel Flores, 28, at the Club 7 tavern in April 2006.
Reed College psychology professor Daniel Reisberg took the stand as a defense witness and talked about police lineups and their impact on potential witnesses.
Reisberg, who teaches officers how to prevent their opinions from influencing witnesses, cited the Oregon State Police’s manual on the proper way to conduct a police lineup in his testimony.
“There should be no more than one suspect and at least five foils (non-suspects) in a lineup,” he said. “If one person has a mustache, they should all have mustaches. If one is clean shaven, they should all be clean shaven. If you have a neutral person, who has nothing to do with the case, and asked them to pick the suspect out of the lineup, they should be clueless.”
Defense attorney Rolf Kehne then displayed a photograph Fruitland police used in an interview with Kenneth Hust, who was in the vicinity of the shooting.
In the photo, Almaraz is directly in the center of the frame, pictured by several other men, some of whom have testified as former gang members.
Shortly after the shooting, Hust circled Almaraz’s head and initialed the photo.
In his testimony two weeks ago, Hust said he believed he saw Almaraz placing a gun in his waistband and heading towards the Club 7 door.
However, Reisberg found fault with the photo’s layout and the figures contained in it.
He testified he believed this was the first time he had seen a photo with a group of people used as a lineup.
“It’s a hearty photograph,” he said. “Normally you get six individual photos, three in each row. You don’t get this kind of photograph.”
He said the photograph concerned him because of the placement of the individuals in the picture.
“It’s the centrality of the picture,” he said. “The center of the picture might catch your attention. When you have two people on the left and two people on the right, they frame the center.”
He then said the chandelier at the top of the photograph completes Almaraz’s framing.
He also pointed out a majority of the men in the photo did not have facial hair, which also separated him from group.
Kehne continued his questioning.
“If there were other suspects in the photo, how would that relate to the guidelines?” he asked.
Reisberg reiterated OSP guidelines which state a photograph should only have one suspect.
Reisberg also spoke about how memories can be altered through outside influences such as police officers and other witnesses.
Kehne asked Reisberg to clarify how outside influences can change how witnesses recall information.
Reisberg said it involves the witness receiving feedback.
He then discussed a study which showed how positive feedback effects witness responses.
“There were (in the study) two groups of people who were shown a crime on a videotape,” he said. “People are then shown six faces and asked to identify which person committed the crime. The first group gets the feedback: ‘You got our guy.’ The second group doesn’t get any feedback. The first group suddenly remembers they were closer to the crime and the lighting was better, even though they all viewed the same videotape.”
Reisberg said he believes these responses stem from rationalizations, rather than what they saw.
“People say to themselves ‘I got the guy, so I guess my view was better after all,’” he said.
Reisberg said he teaches police officers how to interview witnesses in order to prevent them from impacting the witness’ recollection.
“There are many different ways to put other people’s words into people’s memory,” he said.
He then referred to a study done in the 1960s, in which an interviewer showed a group of people a video with no gun in it and asked one group of subjects: “Did you see a gun?” and another group: ‘Did you see the gun?’
He said the addition of the word “the” may have verified for the participants that there was a gun in the video, which caused them to say yes.
However, he cited a Canadian study which showed that, while you may be able to fool some people some of the time, you can’t fool all of them all of the time.
“We’re not going to fool everybody,” he said. “There is a 30 to 35 percent chance of pulling people into a false memory.”
He also testified about how alcohol affects memories.
“Your very first drink, no matter who you are, starts to cut your memory,” he said.
He continued to explain the amount of alcohol consumed in a given period does not matter when it relates to the mind.
“Some people say they can have 8 to 10 beers and function perfectly well,” he said. “But in tests, you can see that they are starting to be hurt by the liquor. That’s why you don’t let them drive. Alcohol does effect everyone. There is no ‘I only had one so I’m OK’. Someone who has been drinking at the time of the event is going to be less able to do the necessary steps to get it into their memory.”
He compared these steps to writing on a piece of paper.
“If nothing is written on the page, it’s going to be harder to remember it later and alcohol prevents information from being written on the page,” he said.
He said because of the alcohol factor, the memories are weaker than someone who was sober at the time of the event.
This causes outside sources to have a stronger impact, even if the person is sober at the time of the suggestion.
However, he said some memories are harder to reconfigure than others.
“You could tell me my wife is a redhead,” he said. “And no matter how suggestive you are, I’m going to tell you ‘No, my wife is a blonde,’ because that’s how strong the memory is.”
Court reconvened at 9 a.m. today, with the prosecution beginning its line of questioning with Reisberg.
