ISSN : 2093-3843
Korean supreme court’s reliability standards for eyewitness testimony have not fully reflected researches of social science. Now, it is time for our practitioner and theorists to make efforts to suggest detailed alternative resolutions, as to the issues of accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Basically, inaccurate eyewitness identification arises from both a systematic cause of improperly composing a process and a non-systematic cause of limits of a human memory. Currently, korean supreme court’s discretion to determine reliability of eyewitness testimony seems to go to the level of excessiveness. Most of all, the court’s standards do not have criteria for considerations of substantial and other factors. Korean supreme court made confused reasoning of reliability issues regarding eyewitness testimony evidences and other general evidences. It is not accidental that the court has tried to make up for damaged reliability of eyewitness testimony by raising other evidence unrelated to eyewitness evidence. To cope with these problems, we need to introduce the system of inadmissibility of eyewitness identificaton evidence, if not other special circumstances or evidence pointed to another direction. To make it possible, the comprehensive standards should be drafted for a guidance of policemen, prosecutors, and courts.
김지영․김시업 (2006). 목격자 증언의 정확성제고방안, 한국형사정책연구원 연구총서
민영성 (2004). 목격자에 의한 범인식별진술의적정한 신용성평가를 위한 담보방법, 저스티스, 제79권
박종선 (2007). 목격자진술에 의한 범인식별의신용성 평가, 중앙법학, 9(3).
백승민 (2008). 형사절차에 있어서 범인식별에관한 연구, 저스티스, 제102호
류여해 (2009). 범인식별절차의 한계성: 대법원 2009. 06. 11. 선고 2008도12111 강제추행치상 판결, 경찰학논총, 4(1).
심희기 (2005). 범인식별 절차에서 목격자 진술의 신빙성을 높이기 위하여 수사기관이준수하여야 할 절차: 대상판결 [대법원 2004.2.27. 선고 2003도7033 판결], 고시연구, 32(5).
우소연․조은경 (2012). 목격자의 범인식별 절차에서 식별 전 지시와 순차적 제시방식유형에 따른 식별 정확성, 한국범죄심리학회, 26(4).
이성기 (2010). 목격자 범인식별진술의 증명력을 높이기 위한 실질적 대안으로서의 비디오 라인업, 경찰학연구, 10(2).
이훈재 (2010). 경찰수사에서 범인식별시스템의 효율적 운영방안에 관한 연구, 한국경찰연구, 9(3).
조광훈 (2008). 수사기관의 범인식별진술 및 절차의 문제점과 개선방안, 법학연구, 18 (1).
허성호․김지영․김기범 (2009). 범인식별과정에서의 정확성에 영향력을 미치는 개인차및 상황변인 분석, 한국공한행정학회보 제36권
홍기원․이보영 (2011). 목격증인의 범인식별진술의 신빙성, 법학연구 제43권
Attorney General Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures, (April 18, 2001).
Braun, Thomas R. & Braun, Anna Restovich, Basic Strategies and Considerations in Defending Homicide Cases, 2014 WL 1573046.
Douglass, Amy Bradfield & Steblay, Nancy, Memory Distortion in Eyewitnesses: A Meta-Analysis of the Post-Identification Feedback Effect, 20 Applied Cognitive Psychol. 859 (2006).
Garrett, Brandon L., Judging Innocence, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 55, 78 (2008).
Gross, Samuel R., Jacoby, Kristen, Matheson, Daniel J., Montgomery, Nicholas & Patil, Sujata, Exonerations in the United States, 1989 Through 2003, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 523 (2005).
Gross, Samuel R., Loss of Innocence: Eyewitness Identification and Proof of Guilt, 16 J. Legal Stud. 395 (1987).
Leippe, Michael R., Eisenstadt, Donna & Rauch, Shannon M., Cueing Confidence in Eyewitness Identifications: Influence of Biased Lineup Instructions and Pre-Identification Memory Feedback under Varying Lineup Conditions, 33 Law & Hum. Behav. 194 (2009).
Loftus, Elizabeth F., Eyewitness Testimony (1979).
Loftus, Elizabeth F., Unconscious Transference in Eyewitness Identification, 2 Law & Psychol. Rev. 93 (1976).
Malpass, Roy S. & Devine, Patricia G., Eyewitness Identification: Lineup Instructions and the Absence of the Offender, 66 J. Applied Psychol. 482 (1981).
Meissner, Christian A. & Brigham, John C., Thirty Years of Investigating the Own-Race Bias in Memory for Faces: A Meta-Analytic Review, 7 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 3 (2001).
Memon, Amina & Gabbert, Fiona, Unravelling the Effects of Sequential Presentation in Culprit-Present Lineups, 17 Applied Cognitive Psychol. 703 (2003).
Note, Did Your Eyes Deceive You? Expert Psychological Testimony on the Unreliability of Eyewitness Identification, 29 Stan. L. Rev. 969 (1977).
Pickel, Kerri L., The Influence of Context on the “Weapon Focus” Effect, 23 Law & Hum. Behav. 299 (1999).
Steblay, Nancy Mehrkens, A Meta-Analytic Review of the Weapon Focus Effect, 16 Law & Hum. Behav. 413 (1992).
Wells, Gary L. & Olson, Elizabeth A., Eyewitness Testimony, 54 Ann. Rev. Psychol. 277 (2003).
Wells, Gary L. & Olson, Elizabeth A., The Other-Race Effect in Eyewitness Identification: What Do We Do About It?, 7 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 230 (2001).
Wells, Gary L. & Amy L. Bradfield, “Good, You Identified the Suspect”: Feedback to Eyewitnesses Distorts Their Reports of the Witnessing Experience, 83 J. Applied Psychol. 360 (1998).
Wells, Gary L., Small, Mark, Penrod, Steven, Malpass, Roy S., Fulero, Solomon M. &Brimacombe, C.A.E., Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads, 23 Law & Hum. Behav. 603 (1998).