Expert: Eyewitness testimony can be hard to gauge
Almaraz trial in Payette goes into final stretch
By Katie Pizza
Argus Observer
Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:11 PM PDT
Payette — A retired University of California psychology professor testified as a rebuttal witness for the prosecution 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.
San Diego-based psychology Professor Emeritus Ebbe Ebbesen took the stand to talk about potential issues with eyewitness testimony. He disagreed with Reed College psychology professor Daniel Reisberg, who testified last month, Ebbesen said one should not generalize studies regarding eyewitness reliability.
“Many of the issues that a jury needs to resolve have not been studied,” he said.
Ebbesen said studies regarding eyewitness testimony are mostly done in laboratories and may not sufficiently show how a witness would react in the real world. He also had the same issue with field studies, in which a random convenience store clerk might be paid in pennies then asked questions about the individual who paid.
“It’s not a real event,” he said. “Witnesses understand we’re not talking about someone who might go to jail.”
Prosecuting attorney Anne-Marie Kelso then asked if a field study could ever replicate a true, violent act.
“No,” he said. “We’re not allowed to.”
He then talked about the Industrial Review Board which evaluates proposed research in an attempt to ensure the benefit to the field psychology is worth the risk to the subject being tested.
One example he used was a demonstration to see if putting a subject through the pain of a needleprick provides worthwhile research benefits.
“If you run into a room waving a gun,” he said. “Then see how well people remember it. Is that worth the risk?”
He then spoke about memories in general, asserting not everyone remembers an event in the same way. He then referred to the attempted assassination of former President Ronald Reagan.
“Democrats had less distinct memories of that event than Republicans,” he said.
He then referred to what he called archival studies, where researchers analyze data from police departments in order to draw a conclusion about eyewitnesses. However, he continued to assert he believed there was not enough evidence to determine the validity of an eyewitness’s testimony.
“There is no expert to say ‘this person is honest, this person is dishonest?” Kelso asked.
Ebbesen said there was not. He also commented on Reisberg’s assertion the eye tends to be drawn to the center of a photograph. In the photo used by a witness to identify the defendant, Almaraz is directly in the center of the frame, pictured by several other men.
“It’s the centrality of the picture,” Reisberg previously 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.”
While Ebbesen said a small number of studies have been done relating to eyewitness identification and eye movement, he also said the amount of time a person spends looking at a particular individual in a lineup does not have a bearing on whether or not they will be selected as a suspect.
“The person could be wearing a clown nose, which would draw more attention,” Kelso said. “But that does not mean they will be chosen as a suspect.”
Ebbesen agreed.
Kelso also questioned Ebbesen about whether or not all subjects in a lineup should look similar.
“Someone shouldn’t stand out too much,” she said.
Ebbesen said a manual on the subject, which he helped to create, simply stated the person should not be unduly different from the rest. He then said it is up to the police to decide what that means.
“There are thousands of ways a person can stand out,” he said. “In a lineup, I might see a person who looks defiant and think ‘oh, he’s one of those guys.’”
Ebbesen also spoke about Reisberg’s assertion that one alcoholic drink can begin impede a person’s memory.
“It’s only at high levels of alcohol,” he said. “To the point where people lose consciousness.”
However, he said more studies needed to be conducted to determine exact blood alcohol percentages. Kelso asked why those studies have not been conducted. Ebbesen said a majority of lab studies are conducted on college campuses involving college students.
“It’s hard to convince people in a college setting that you’re going to get college students drunk,” he said.
Defense attorney Van Bishop then began his line of questioning.
Bishop asserted the eyewitness manual Ebbesen referred to in his earlier testimony was created because DNA evidence overturned convictions brought about because of eyewitness testimony. However, Ebbesen testified the cases were overturned by several different variables such as destroyed evidence and inaccurate blood expert testimony.
Bishop then said the National Institute of Justice would not have created a manual on the subject unless the institute felt there was a valid reason to create such guidelines.
“People had been convicted on eyewitness testimony falsely,” Bishop said.
However, Ebbesen said he primarily focused on whether or not to use simultaneous lineups in his work with the institute.
Closing arguments are slated to begin today.
