ISSN : 2093-3843
It is not convenient and practical for law enforcement to operate the lineup process of eyewitness identification. That is, the conveniency of law enforcement can drive to shift the requirement of urgency into that of proximity of time and space. Considering most of show-ups are made with proximity of time and space, an exceptional requirement can be changed into a principal requirement. The proximity of time and space possibly supercede not only line-up but also show-up and take up the main and majority process of eyewitness identification process. According to the scientific research results, show-up process may intensify the problems in store and reproduction of memories and cause high level of bias. Also, even though the accuracy of show-up process become lower as time goes by, it does not necessarily justify immediate show-up process. Show-up is still dangerous compared to ordinary line-up. Therefore, immediacy requirement should be replaced by urgency requirement. the inevitable condition is required, for example when a victim is close to death, when there is a circumstance that a victim cannot come to police department or detention center, when it is not proper to constitute a lineup process, or when it is necessary to determine the accuracy of arrest. In conclusion, show-up should be presumed to be an unfair process until it is proved that law enforcement made additional efforts to enhance accuracy or set aside suggestiveness of the process.
강우예 (2014. 3.) 대법원 범인식별의 신빙성기준에 대한 분석적 고찰. 한국심리학회지: 법정 5(1), 13-27.
Cicchini, Michael D. & Easton, Joseph G., Reforming the Law on Show-up Identifications(2010). J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 100, 381.
Deffenbacher, K. A. (1983). Eyewitness Accuracy and Confidence: Can We Infer Anything About Their Relationship?, Law & Hum. Behav. 4, 243.
Ellison, Katherine W. & Buckhout, Robert (1981). Psychology and Criminal Justice.
Findley, Keith A. (2008). Toward a New Paradigm of Criminal Justice: How the Innocence Movement Merges Crime Control and Due Process, Tex. Tech L. Rev. 41, 133.
Gonzalez, Richard et al., (1993). Response Bias in Lineup and Showups, J. Personality and Soc. Psychol. 64, 525.
Gross, Samuel R (1987). Loss of Innocence:Eyewitness Identification and Proof of Guilt, J. Legal Stud. 16, 395.
Grossman, Steven P., (1981). Suggestive Identifications:The Supreme Court’s Due Process Test Fails to Meet Its Own Criteria, U. Balt. L. Rev. 11, 53.
Jones, Cynthia E., (2005). Evidence Destroyed, Innocence Lost: The Preservation of Biological Evidence under Innocence Protection Statutes, Am. Crim. L. Rev. 42, 1239.
Kahn-Fogel, (2012). Nicholas A., Manson and its Progeny: An Empirical Analysis of Amrican Eyewitness Law, Ala. C. R. & C. L. L. Rev. 3, 175.
Krouse, F. L., (2012). Effects of Pose, Pose Change, and Delay on Face Recognition Performance, J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 66, 651.
Landsman, Stephen, (1984). Reforming Adversary Procedure: A Proposal Concerning the Psychology of Memory and the Testimony of Disinterested Witnesses, U. Pitt. L. Rev. 45, 547.
Lee, Jessica, (2005). No Exigency, No Consent:Protecting Innocent Suspects from the Consequences of Non-Exigent Show-Ups, Colum. Hum. Rits. L. Rev. 36, 755.
Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, Joanna D., Craig, Wendy, Lee, Kang & Corber, Samantha,(1998). Simultaneous Lineups, Sequential Lineups, and Showups: Eyewitness Identification Decisions of Adults and Children, Law & Hum. Behav. 21, 391.
Loftus, Elizabeth F., (2003). Award for Distinguished Scientific Applications of Psychology, Am. Psychol. 58, 864.
Loftus, Elizabeth F. & James M. Doyles, (2d ed., 1992). Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal § 1.05.
Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1979) Eyewitness Testimony.
Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1974) Incredible Eyewitness, Psychol. Today, Dec.
O＇Toole, Timothy P. & Shay, (2006). Giovanna, Manson v. Brathwaithe Revisited: Toward a New Rule of Decision for Due Process Challenges to Eyewitness Identification Procedures, Val. U. L. Rev. 41, 109.
Penrod, Steve & Cutler, Brian, (1995). Witness Confidence and Witness Accuracy: Assessing Their Forensic Relation, Psychol. Pub. Pol’y 1, 817.
Scheck, Barry, (2002). Closing Remarks to Symposium, Thinking Outside the Box:Proposals for Change, Cardozo L. Rev. 23, 899.
Shepherd, John W., Ellis, Hadyn D. & Davies,Graham M., (Aberdeen Univ. Press 1982). Identification Evidence: A Psychological Evalutation.
Sonenshein, David A. & Nilon, (2010). Robin, Eyewitness Errors and Wrongful Convictions:Let’s Give Science a Chance, Or. L. Rev. 89, 263.
Taylor, Lawrence, Eyewitness Identification (Stephen R. Saltzburg & Kenneth R. Redden eds., 1982).
TerBeek, Calvin, (2007). A Call for Precedential Heads: Why the Supreme Court’s Eyewitness Identification Jurisprudence is Anachronistic and Out-of-Step with Empirical Reality, Law & Psychol. Rev. 31, 21.
Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, (MartinFishbein ed., 1980). Causal Schemas in Judgments under Uncertainty, in 1 Progress in Soc. Psychol. 49.
Wagenaar, W. & Veefkind, N., (F. Losel et al.eds., 1992) Comparison of One-Person and Many Person Lineups: A Warning Against Unsafe Practices, in Psychol. and Law:Internat’l Perspectives.
Wall, Patrick M., (1965). Eyewitness Identification in Criminal Cases.
Wells, Gary L. & Olson, Elizabeth A., (2003). Eyewitness Testimony, Ann. Rev. Psychol. 54, 277.
Wells, Gary L, et al., (2003). Distorted Retrospective Eyewitness Reports as Functions of Feedback and Delay, J. Experimental Psychol. 9, 42.
Wells, Gary L. (2001). Police Lineups: Data, Theory and Policy, Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 7, 791.
Wells, Gary L, et al., (1998) Eyewitness Identification Procedure: Recommendation for Lineups and Photospreads, Law & Hum. Behav. 22, 603
Wells, Gary L, (Gary L. Wells & Elizabeth F.Loftus eds., 1984) How Adequate is HumanIntuition for Judging Eyewitness Testimony?in Eyewitness Testimony: PsychologicalPerspectives
Wells, Gary L, et al., (1981). The Tractability of Eyewitness Confidence and its Implications for Triers of Fact, J. Applied Psychol. 66, 688.
Wells, Gary L, (1978) Applied eyewitness testimony research system variables and estimators variables, J. of Personality & Soc. Psychol. 36, 1546
Williams, Glanville & Hammelmann, H. A., Identification Parades, Part I, Crim. L. Rev. 1963, 479
Wis. Dept't of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, (2005) Model Policy and Procedure for Eyewitness Identification
Yacona, Ruth, Comment, (2006). Manson v. Brathwaite: The Supreme Court’s Misunderstanding of Eyewitness Identification, J. Marshall L. Rev. 39, 539.
Yarmey, A Daniel, (1996) Understanding Police and Police Work: Psychological Issues (N.Y. Univ. Press 1990)
Yarmey, A Daniel & Yarmey, Meagan J. & Yarmey, Linda A., (1996) Accuracy of Eyewitness Identifications in Show-ups and Lineup, Law & Hum. Behav. 20, 459.