Yet another "racial" confrontation with police, this time in

[illinilaw08]

Training. For the 10th time. They get training. And they have more experience and exposure to it. That's justification enough. It's not like i'm making this up out of thin air. No, I don't have a study to back me up. But I think it's a logical assumption to make.

 

 

 

 

Or literally any other aspect of life wherein training and repetition occurs. It's a safe assumption that someone who does something more often is going to be better at it than someone who doesn't.

 

Jenks, according to the linked paper below, training has limited impact on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (see pages 273 and 274 of the linked study).

 

https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol40p271.pdf

 

EDIT: I'm not arguing that eye witness testimony is entirely unreliable or that it should not be used. I'm merely arguing that there should be a greater hurdle to reach the conclusion that "police officers are better at recollecting things" than "it's a logical inference to make."

Edited June 18, 2015 by illinilaw08

[Jenksismyhero]

Except that while filling out those documents they're also doing exactly what you said in the first line, filling in the gaps with things they think they saw. They're training in that skill too.

 

But they're going about it more accurately. Which is my point. If a lay person sees a crime occurring, in their mind they're not necessarily thinking "oh s***, i gotta ID this guy, so let me get his color, height, hair color, clothing, etc." They're probably thinking, naturally, oh s***! there's a crime occurring!

 

A cop, I venture to guess based on a logical assumption, IS asking those questions in his mind and making mental notes.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, according to the linked paper below, training has limited impact on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (see pages 273 and 274 of the linked study).

 

https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol40p271.pdf

 

Not sure that's the take-away there, but regardless, what's the comparison to average joe's?

[illinilaw08]

Not sure that's the take-away there, but regardless, what's the comparison to average joe's?

 

What's the take-away from that section of the article then?

 

My point - you are arguing that officers are experts at identification (or at the very least are better than the average joe) because they receive general training on the subject. But we don't require prosecutors to lay that foundation at trial. And even if we did, there doesn't seem to be any science to support the conclusion that the training has a substantial impact on the reliability of eye witness recollection.

 

And even IF you are correct that the officer's recollection is better than the average joe's, if it's still inherently unreliable, why are we giving greater weight to that testimony in the first place? Shouldn't the conclusion then be "all eye witness testimony is unreliable, particularly in high stress situations - even if the individual has received training on the subject?"

 

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

What's the take-away from that section of the article then?

 

My point - you are arguing that officers are experts at identification (or at the very least are better than the average joe) because they receive general training on the subject. But we don't require prosecutors to lay that foundation at trial. And even if we did, there doesn't seem to be any science to support the conclusion that the training has a substantial impact on the reliability of eye witness recollection.

 

And even IF you are correct that the officer's recollection is better than the average joe's, if it's still inherently unreliable, why are we giving greater weight to that testimony in the first place? Shouldn't the conclusion then be "all eye witness testimony is unreliable, particularly in high stress situations - even if the individual has received training on the subject?"

 

That navy/marine officers in high stress interrogations had poor memory recall, but officers in survival training and cops aren't exactly in the same line of work. They cite to a study about cops failing at a 51% rate but don't really discuss it. Perhaps that study would show what you're saying, but this one doesn't.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[illinilaw08]

That navy/marine officers in high stress interrogations had poor memory recall, but officers in survival training and cops aren't exactly in the same line of work. They site to a study about cops failing at a 51% rate but don't really discuss it. Perhaps that study would show what you're saying, but this one doesn't.

 

Fair enough. I think the premise - that the officers in high stress (and low stress) interrogations, who were trained in memory recall, had poor recall (I consider 76% recall to still be pretty poor under the circumstances) to be a fairly on point comparison, but I see the argument to the contrary.

 

What's your position on the foundation argument I raised above? Namely, if eye witness recall generally is unreliable, shouldn't the burden be on the prosecutor to establish that the officer's recollection is sufficiently more reliable? I mean, if I have a doctor on the stand, I don't get to call a podiatrist an expert on head trauma just because he has an MD behind his name.*

 

* Note, I acknowledge that example isn't perfect, but we don't just get to assume that someone is more reliable because of their profession without establishing foundation in support of that contention.

[Jenksismyhero]

Fair enough. I think the premise - that the officers in high stress (and low stress) interrogations, who were trained in memory recall, had poor recall (I consider 76% recall to still be pretty poor under the circumstances) to be a fairly on point comparison, but I see the argument to the contrary.

 

What's your position on the foundation argument I raised above? Namely, if eye witness recall generally is unreliable, shouldn't the burden be on the prosecutor to establish that the officer's recollection is sufficiently more reliable? I mean, if I have a doctor on the stand, I don't get to call a podiatrist an expert on head trauma just because he has an MD behind his name.*

 

* Note, I acknowledge that example isn't perfect, but we don't just get to assume that someone is more reliable because of their profession without establishing foundation in support of that contention.

 

Wouldn't it be enough for the cop to explain some of the police procedures he's been trained on, how many of X accidents or crime scenes he's worked over the years, best practices for when cops get on scene, etc. I have to imagine there's enough material out there on police procedure that you'd be able to say that a cop has more training than the average joe and thus has some sort of expertise on the matter, just like you would any other "expert."

 

 

[illinilaw08]

Wouldn't it be enough for the cop to explain some of the police procedures he's been trained on, how many of X accidents or crime scenes he's worked over the years, best practices for when cops get on scene, etc. I have to imagine there's enough material out there on police procedure that you'd be able to say that a cop has more training than the average joe and thus has some sort of expertise on the matter, just like you would any other "expert."

 

I'm not sure I understand that argument. The officer certainly has knowledge on procedures regarding a crime scene. What does that have to do with laying the foundation that their memory recall is better than the average joe? I would think that to show that the particular officer was more reliable than an average joe on accurate eye witness recollection, you would need to show reliable training that improved that recollection. But I'm not comfortable inferring that some amount of training actually accomplishes that goal in light of all the science regarding how unreliable eye witness testimony is generally.

 

Additionally, let's say that an officer's recollection is better than an average joe, but that, because of the way the brain works, it is STILL not particularly reliable. Are you comfortable with giving greater deference to a better, but still unreliable, methodology? Doesn't that tilt the playing field in every single case in favor of the officer?

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I haven't seen anything indicating that officers do train specifically for heat-of-the-moment memory recall. Working a scene after the fact isn't the same thing as being an eyewitness.

[DrunkBomber]

I am the last person who wants to defend cops but to me there is more to being a witness than memory recall. Id imagine police are trained to be more observant and aware of the surroundings. Theyre looking for scars, tattoos, facial features etc. They are trained in writing police reports so its probable they are noting distances, heights, builds, directions etc. Maybe a better way to describe what I mean is a cop and a civilian can see and recall the same event, but the cop is better prepared to explain and describe what happened with more detail, because of their training.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not sure I understand that argument. The officer certainly has knowledge on procedures regarding a crime scene. What does that have to do with laying the foundation that their memory recall is better than the average joe? I would think that to show that the particular officer was more reliable than an average joe on accurate eye witness recollection, you would need to show reliable training that improved that recollection. But I'm not comfortable inferring that some amount of training actually accomplishes that goal in light of all the science regarding how unreliable eye witness testimony is generally.

 

 

Right, you'd have to have a study to prove that. I'm just saying if someone was putting up a defense that a cop's eye witness memories are just as bad as everyone else's, you'd try to rebut that by showing the various training and experience the officer had. You would have to hope that the jurors would make that assumption on their own.

 

Additionally, let's say that an officer's recollection is better than an average joe, but that, because of the way the brain works, it is STILL not particularly reliable. Are you comfortable with giving greater deference to a better, but still unreliable, methodology? Doesn't that tilt the playing field in every single case in favor of the officer?

 

I mean yeah, I think a juror should have in the back of his/her mind the knowledge that eye witness testimony can be wrong and that you need to make sure the entire set of facts being presented fits. But i'm also not on the other end of the spectrum like some people here who think that because 5% or whatever of people ID'd the wrong guy that means ALL eye witness testimony is crap. You should have a healthy dose of skepticism. But you should have that with everything anyone says. Maybe because i'm already like that (as an anal-retentive lawyer) I just assume people think the same way.

[Jenksismyhero]

I am the last person who wants to defend cops but to me there is more to being a witness than memory recall. Id imagine police are trained to be more observant and aware of the surroundings. Theyre looking for scars, tattoos, facial features etc. They are trained in writing police reports so its probable they are noting distances, heights, builds, directions etc. Maybe a better way to describe what I mean is a cop and a civilian can see and recall the same event, but the cop is better prepared to explain and describe what happened with more detail, because of their training.

 

They have a different mindset. That's the nature of being a cop. I can say the same is true for being a lawyer. I'm constantly, 24/7, in every aspect of life, always asking "what if I get screwed and I have to prove this at trial?" I act accordingly - always getting paper receipts, always sending confirmation e-mails or letters, never assuming anything and leaving it up to interpretation, etc. Non-lawyers, generally, don't do that. Can we point to a study that shows that lawyers are better at that stuff? No, probably not. But is it still a logical assumption to make? IMO, yes.

[Iwritecode]

But i'm also not on the other end of the spectrum like some people here who think that because 5% or whatever of people ID'd the wrong guy that means ALL eye witness testimony is crap.

 

Actually, I think it's closer to 5% that identify the right guy.

 

From the study linked above:

 

In one early study, seventy-three unwitting convenience store clerks were subjected to memorably bizarre behavior by “customers” in 146 tests. Two hours later, in only 34.2% of the tests, were the clerks able to correctly identify the customer from a non-suggestive photoarray; twenty-four hours later, the clerks could do so only 7.8% of the time.

 

In a similar study, where the identification time period of two or twenty-four hours was chosen at random and when the customer was in the photoarray, 41% of the clerks correctly identified him. However, when the customer was not in 13 the photoarray, 34% of the clerks mistakenly identified someone else.

 

We are talking about less than a 50/50 chance that an eye-witness is choosing the right person.

[Jenksismyhero]

Actually, I think it's closer to 5% that identify the right guy.

 

From the study linked above:

 

 

 

 

 

We are talking about less than a 50/50 chance that an eye-witness is choosing the right person.

 

What does "memorably bizarre behavior" mean? I'm sure convenience store clerks see a lot of bizarre behavior. It may or may not be bizarre enough to be memorable. I think these studies are crap when it comes down to major crimes like someone shooting someone or someone beating someone else with a flag pole. You don't see criminal acts every day. Those are truly memorable.

 

Again, not suggesting that there isn't an issue with eye witness testimony in general. People should be skeptical and it's the attorney's job to make the witness and the memories they have credible. I just don't think it's nearly as prevalent as people are making it.

 

btw, the same study said this: "There is no way to know for certain how many convictions are based on mistaken identification testimony. Estimates range as high as 5%. One

conservative study believes that as few (or as many) as 0.5% of convicted felons are actually innocent."

Edited June 19, 2015 by Jenksismybitch