Trincado 1

Ashley Trincado

Professor Calhoun

English 1201

March 6, 2019

Annotated Bibliography

My essay will discuss whether eyewitness accounts are reliable in court testimonies and other

aspects of everyday life. It will touch on topics that are not often discussed such as memory blocks,

suggestibility, and cross-racial identification. I will explain how we remember things and how our

memory can actually be tricked into believing something that never actually happened. We will discuss

how something as simple as remembering a detail incorrectly can sent someone to prison for a lifetime.

I will also attempt to explain a few ways to help our memories be more accurate.

Lacy, Joyce W and Stark, Craig L. The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom, US

National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 2013 Aug 14,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/

This article is from a journal called US National Library of Medicine from the National Institutes of

Health. The authors are Joyce Lacy and Craig Stark who are from the Department of Neurobiology and

Behavior at the University of California. It was published online in 2013. This article mainly focuses on

the idea of memory bias and how that can affect the way we remember events. The article quotes the

famous scientist Niesser when he likened memory to paleontology by saying “out of a few stored bone

chips, we remember a dinosaur”. This means that if we think something should happen a certain way

based on previous experience we are likely to believe that it did happen that way. The article goes into

deep details about why our memories fail us including information about the “misinformation effect”

and false memories.

 Trincado 2

This article was written for a scientific audience as it was published in a scientific journal. The

information is very in-depth and thorough and would not be good for the general public. The writers

have clearly studied this topic and presented it in a clear concise way.

I found this article on the database in the Sinclair library and as it in the US National Library of

Medicine I found it very credible. The authors are both professors at the University of California and are

both known professionals in their field. The article is written in a way that helps make it credible by

using sources and citing them at the bottom.

I plan on using this article to prove that from a scientific stand point our memories cannot be

trusted. This article gives some great results from some experiments that prove people don’t remember

what they think they do. I will also use the information in the article to talk about memory bias and how

that is a scientifically proven phenomenon. I could also use this article in many other ways since it is

extensive and thorough in all the information given.

Loftus, Elizabeth. “How reliable is your memory?” TED, June 2013,

https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory?referrer=playlist-

%20%20%20the_complexity_of_memory, 27 February 2019

This video is an amazing video by a phycologist who studies memory. Her name is Elizabeth

Loftus. Mrs. Loftus is a memory manipulation expert and has written a book titled Eyewitness

Testimony. In this Ted talk Mrs. Loftus talks about a case she worked on of a man named Steve Titus.

Mr. Titus was accused and convicted of rape on the merit of a faulty memory.

This video tells the true story of a man convicted from an eyewitness account that later was

found to be innocent from DNA testing. It tells about some experiments that Mrs. Loftus did and how

they proved that misinformation is one of the biggest reasons for misidentification in eyewitness

accounts.
 Trincado 3

This is a credible source because it comes from a professional in the field of memory and from a

trusted cite. Ted Talk is used in many of my classes at Sinclair to share interesting information from

trusted experts in the field. Even though it was posted in 2013, I still found it reliable.

I plan to use the information from her video to show how eyewitness accounts can be wrong

and why that happens. I will use this information to discuss faulty memories and misinformation. Mrs.

Loftus talks in this video about how she performed experiments that proved that when people are fed

information their memories can be changed. I will use these experiments as examples of

misinformation.

Hurly, Greg. “The Trouble with Eyewitness Identification Testimony in Criminal Cases”. Trends in State

Courts. National Center for State Courts. 2017. Web Publication. 10 March 2019,

www.ncsc.org/sitecore/content/microsites/trends/home/Monthly-Trends-Articles/2017/The-

Trouble-with-Eyewitness-Identification-Testimony-in-Criminal-Cases.aspx.

This is an article I found on the National Center for State Courts. It was written by Greg Hurly in

2017 and discusses how a line-up should best be carried out. This article sources information from

another article titled “Implementing the Lessons from Wrongful Convictions: An Empirical Analysis of

the Eyewitness Identification Reform Issues.” This article gives a step-by-step plan as how to perform a

line-up to help lessen the chances for a wrongful identification. It gives seven steps to carry this out.

This article talks about the NAS report titled “Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness

Identification”. This article gives specific details about the way lineups should be performed. The seven

criteria are only one suspect per procedure, proper selection of “fillers”, unbiased witness instructions,

double-blind administration, prompt recording of confidence statement, sequential presentation, and

limit the use of show-ups.

 Trincado 4

This article is part of a data-base of information for the court systems to access. This information

was written in 2017 so it is current and accurate. It is relevant because it spells out information that is

crucial to my paper, and it meets the criteria for the CRAAP.

I will use this information in my paper to show that even law enforcement and courts are

starting to take necessary measures to ensure that eyewitness accounts are accurate and acceptable. I

will also further explain the seven criteria for eyewitness lineups.

Timmer, John. “The science of why eyewitness testimony is often wrong” Ars Technica, Ars

Technica. July 25, 2017. Web Publication. March 8 2019.

arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/the-science-of-why-eyewitness-testimony-is-often-wrong/

This article was written in the science portion of a website called “Ars Technica” by John Timmer

in 2017. I don’t know much about the site itself; however, the author has his Bachelor of Arts in

Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of

California, Berkeley. This article is great because it really gives the science behind why eyewitness

accounts are not accurate. It talks about memory and states “Faced with partial information, research

indicates that our brain's response isn't to commit what information we do have to memory, instead,

our brains attempt to create a coherent picture that makes sense.” This article does a great job of giving

scientific reasoning behind the problem.

This article was written for a scientific audience to inform them of the reasons behind

eyewitness failures. This article cites information from neuroscientist Thomas Albright who is a

respected psychologist and has been pioneer into the field of memory bias and reconstruction. It

explains that the brains automatic response to something that doesn’t make sense is to add or subtract

from that memory just to make it make sense.

 Trincado 5

It was written by someone who is an expert in the field, but, beyond that, it uses information gathered

from one of the most trusted memory experts of the time. The purpose for this article is to inform the

public that this is a really large problem that we must understand and face.

I will use this information in my paper to give in-depth details behind the science of eyewitness

accounts and why sometimes they are not accurate. I will use the information in the article to explain

why scientists say that our minds “are not video recorders”, that our memories are malleable, and that

when we recall information from our memory it is often not accurate.

Hourihan, Kathleen L et al. “A cross-race effect in metamemory: Predictions of face recognition are more

accurate for members of our own race” Journal of applied research in memory and cognition vol.

1,3 (2012): 158-162.

The article was written in the US National Library of Medicine from the National Institutes of

Health. This journal is one I have used before and find it informative and accurate. This article was

written by Kathleen L. Hourihan and Aaron S. Benjamin who are both professors of Psychology at The

University of Newfoundland. This article talked about a phenomenon that is important to our subject

known as the Cross-Racial Effect (CRE). This article goes into details about what CRE is and how it affects

eyewitness testimonies. CRE is the tendency to more easily recognize faces of the race that one is most

familiar with. A study was made which examined 271 real court cases. In photographic line-ups, 231

witnesses participated in cross-race versus same-race identification. In cross-race lineups, only 45%

were correctly identified versus 60% for same-race identifications. The purpose of this article is to share

results from studies that have been done. One quote from it is, “The aim of the current study was to

examine the metacognitive accuracy of predictions of recognition for own- and other-race faces”.
 Trincado 6

This article was written for the purpose of sharing information from a scientific perspective

about (CRE). It is written in a scientific journal sharing findings from current studies; therefore, it is not

like an article in a newspaper, because it uses scientific language and terminology.

The writers of this article are Kathleen L. Hourihan and Aaron S. Benjamin who are both

professors of Psychology. This article is accurate because it meets all the standards from CRAPP. It is

current because it was written in 2012. It is relevant because CRE is important to my paper in that it

explains more about the brains inability to notice differences in different races. The writers have

authority on the subject because they are professionals in the field. The information is accurate based

on other information I have researched. The purpose of the article is simply to inform the reader of

findings from studies being done.

I will use this information to discuss the cross-racial effect and how this information is important

when identifying suspects. I will use the results from the study to explain how this is a real problem and

how this could affect someone’s ability to identify someone from a different race.

McLeud, Saul. “Eyewitness Testimony”. Simple Psychology. Simplepsychology.org. 2009. Web

Publication. 13 March 2019. www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html

This article was written by Saul McLeud and was published in the Simple Psychology web page in

2018. Mr. McLeud is a researcher for the University of Manchester. In this article he talked about a few

reasons why eyewitness testimonies may not be reliable. He begins by talking about stress and anxiety

and how those things affect people in traumatic situations. Along with talking about anxiety/stress, he

discussed reconstructive memories, weapon focus, and leading questions which are all important

aspects of eyewitness identification.

 Trincado 7

This article gave a perspective of scientific reasoning about eyewitness accounts. The purpose of

the article is to inform people why this could happen and how it affects our brains. The article is straight

forward in the information and is not bias.

I found this article to be credible for the purpose of my paper, because it discusses Bartlett’s

theory of reconstructive memory. After much study on this theory, this article does a good job of

breaking it down and making it understandable. Even though this article is a little old the information is

still accurate and good for my paper.

I will use this article to discuss Bartlett’s theory of reconstructive memory. Bartlett suggested

that recall is subject to personal interpretation dependent on our learnt or cultural norms and values,

and the way we make sense of our world. I will use this information to further explain our memory

processes and how that affects eyewitness ID.

Wixted, John and Mickes, Laura. “Eyewitness Memory Is a Lot More Reliable Than You Think.” Scientific

American Mind, vol. 28, no. 6, Nov. 2017, p. 35. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1117-35

This article was written by John Wixted who is a distinguished Professor of Psychology at the

University of California, San Diego. I found this article on the Sinclair Database. It gives the opposite

opinion of what my paper states, but in trying to cover all the bases I think this is important. This article

attempts to explain why eyewitness accounts are important and gives ways to better use them.

The purpose of this article is to explain how eyewitness testimonies have gotten such a bad

name. It goes into detail about why this may have happened and gives ways to prevent them in the

future. I like this article because it gives a different perspective than I have read in the past.
 Trincado 8

This article was found in the Sinclair Data Base and is written by a respected professor from the

University of California. It meets all the of the criteria for CRAAP. It was written in 2017, it is relevant

because it gives the other side to the argument, the writer is an authority on the subject, it was on the

Sinclair database, even though the information is analyzed in a different way it is still accurate, and its

purpose is to inform.

I will use this article to give a counter argument to the main idea of my paper. I love the ideas

given in this article and think many of them are worth looking at further. To make sure I cover all the

bases I want to use this article to cover all aspects of this idea.