In determining that Davis's identification was admissible the lower court stated: "The court's finding is that there is evidence -- I won't say reliable, but I think that's a matter for the jury -- that she can identify them. I don't find it unduly suggestive. I find the issues -- the weight is a matter for the jury." The state Supreme Court found that the lower court did not look at the reliability of Davis's identification in regards to the guidelines established in Neil and did not make a decision that her identification was unfailing, which was an error.
As shown by the record, without Davis's identification, the State's case against Moore was tenuous. Accordingly, the court found error in admitting Davis's identification testimony without first figuring out that her identification was dependable, which was not harmless. Therefore, this case was remand back to the trial court in order to hold a hearing to figure out, under the whole of the circumstances, that the identification of Moore was dependable.
In another case State of Connecticut v. Julian Marquez, No. 17663, 2008, the court proposed that in the influential case of Neil v. Biggers, supra, 409 U.S. At 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, the Supreme Court explained the overarching apprehension that courts face when evaluating a disputed identification procedure. The court said that the primary goal is to avoid a very substantial probability of irreversible misidentification. It is the likelihood of misidentification which infringes a defendant's rights to due process. As courts apply the two-pronged test to decide if a specific identification procedure is so suggestive and untrustworthy as to necessitate suppression, they forever should weigh the pertinent factors against this standard. In other words, an eyewitness identification should be barred on the foundation of the procedure used to extract that identification only if the court is sure that the procedure was so suggestive and otherwise untrustworthy as to give rise to a very considerable probability of irreversible misidentification.
Callahan, S. (1993, December 17). Memory can play tricks. Commonweal, 120, 6+. Retrieved August 4, 2005, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.
Gordon, B.N., & Follmer, a. (1994). Developmental issues in judging the credibility of children's testimony. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23(3), 283-294.
Handberg, R.B. (1995). Expert testimony on eyewitness identification: A new pair of glasses for the jury. American Criminal Law Review, 32(4), 1013-1064. Retrieved August 4, 2005, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.
Howton, T. (1996). Death or declaration. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(4), 1461-1491. Retrieved August 4, 2005, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.
Loftus, E.F. (2002, Summer). Memory faults and fixes: Research has revealed the limits of human memory; Now the courts need to incorporate these findings into their procedures. Issues in Science and Technology, 18, 41+. Retrieved August 4, 2005, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.
Memory's future. (2001, March). Psychology Today, 34, 55. Retrieved August 4, 2005, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.
Rubin, D.C. (1985, September). The subtle deceiver: Recalling our past; we filter memories of past events through the screen of our present lives. Psychology Today, 19, 38+. Retrieved August 4, 2005, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.
Sanchirico, C.W. (2004). Evidence, procedure and the upside of cognitive error. Stanford Law Review, 57(2), 291+. Retrieved August 4, 2005, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.
Webert, D.R. (2003). Are the courts in a trance? Approaches to the admissibility of hypnotically enhanced witness testimony in light of empirical evidence. American Criminal Law Review, 40(3), 1301+. Retrieved August 4, 2005, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.
Wells, G.L., & Olson, E.A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. 277+. Retrieved August 4, 2005, from Questia database, http://www.questia.com.
Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/piaget.html
Kulfosfky, S. And Kemfuss, J.Z. (2008). What the stories children tell can tell about their memory: narrative skill and young children's suggestibility. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1442-1456.
Wilde Astington, J. And Edward, M.J. (2010, August) the development of theory of mind in early childhood. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. [Web.] Retreived http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/Astington-EdwardANGxp.pdf
Brewer, W.F., & Treyens, J.C.(1981). Role of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology, 12(2), 207-230
Charman, S., & Wells, G.(2008). Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(1), 5-20.
Christianson, S., & Hubinette, B.(1993). Hand up A study of witnesses' emotional reactions and memories associated with bank robberies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7(5), 365-379
Duffy, E.L.(1948). Motivational theory of emotion. Psychological Review, 55, 324-328.
Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201
Gerrie, M., Belcher, L., & Garry, M.(2006). 'Mind the Gap': False Memories for Missing Aspects of an Event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(5), 689-696.
Loftus, E.F., & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 86-88
Morgan, C., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrent, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress .International Journal of Law and psychiatry, 27(3), 265-279
Nemeth, R., & Belli, R.(2006). The influence of schematic knowledge on contradictory vs. additive misinformation: False memory for typical and atypical items. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(5), 563-573.
Payne, J., Nadel, L., Allen, J., Thomas, K., & Jacobs, W. (2002). The effects of experimentally induced stress on false recognition. Memory, 10(1), 1-6
Pansky, A., & Bar, S.K. (2004). The role of basic level convergence in accounting for the misinformation effect.
Wells, GL., & Loftus, E.F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for people and events. In A.M. Goldstein (Ed). Handbook of Psychology: Forensic Psychology, Vol II (pp. 149-160). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.