 |
||||||||
|
 |
|
Ralph Norman Haber and Lyn Haber, Partners |
|
PerceivingWe provide expert testimony on factors that affect the accuracy of perceiving The best circumstances for good perceiving are under high light levels, close to the action, on a clear day, for sufficient time, and with no distractions. Lighting Factors: accuracy of perceiving is sharply reduced in low light levels. Back-lighting affects perception of facial features, as do shadows. If the witness is in bright light, it is much more difficult to see into dark places. Distance Factors: accuracy of perceiving details depends on the distance between the witness and the action, with the effect greater at night. Duration Factors: very brief events are more difficult to see completely and accurately compared to longer ones, especially if there are distractions, or many people involved. Fog Factors: all atmospheric effects (fog, snow, rain) reduce accuracy of perception, compared to clear atmospherics. Perspective and Distraction Factors: Perception is less accurate if the witness is not oriented toward the action of the crime as it occurs, is not looking in the right place, or is distracted by other events at the same time, or is focused on something else, such as gore, or a weapon. An excellent general textbook on factors that affect the accuracy of perceiving is: Ralph Haber and Maurice Hershenson (1980). The Psychology of Visual Perception (2nd Edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Publishers. CLICK here to view our Case Citations for cases involving perception issues CLICK here to return to Home Page. MemoryWe provide expert testimony on the factors that affect the accuracy of memory The best circumstances to establish and maintain a good memory for an event are to have perceived it adequately, attended to it at the time, the event/people are familiar, the witness's memory is protected from new post-events information, the witness reports what was seen soon after the event, and the witness was not subjected to misleading or directed questioning. The negative factors include: Perception Factors: the witness viewed the crime in poor light, at night, against back lighting, from a great distance, in the fog, or very briefly. Attention Factors: presence of weapons or gore that narrow attention away from the perpetrator's features, many people are present, noise, lots of distraction. Unfamiliarity Factors: perpetrator was a stranger; events were unexpected; cross racial identification was involved. Post-Event Factors: witness has learned new information after first describing the crime. Time Factors: long delay between witnessing and reporting, and between reporting and testifying. Questioning Factors: misleading, leading, biased or pressure questioning of the witness. In addition to consultation and testimony regarding these factors, we provide Content Analyses of changes in testimony as a result of leading, misleading, presupposition, biased or linguistically pressured questions; interpretation of meaning of documents or spoken language. CLICK here to view our latest research publication on the factors that affect the accuracy of memory: Ralph Haber and Lyn Haber (2000). Experiencing, remembering and reporting events. The cognitive psychology of eyewitness testimony. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, vol. 6, pp. 1057-1097. CLICK here to view our Case Citations for cases involving eyewitness memory. CLICK here to return to Home Page. Eyewitness IdentificationWe provide expert testimony on the factors that affect identification accuracy US Attorney General's Guidelines for Investigations Involving Eyewitnesses. These 1999 guidelines incorporate most of the latest research and contain recommendations for how investigations involving eyewitnesses should be conducted. CLICK here to view the US Attorney General's Guidelines to see if the Guidelines have been properly followed in your case. We can testify about two general sets of factors that can increase or decrease the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, those stemming from the crime and itself, and those from the way in which the investigation was carried out. Crime Characteristics. The negative factors include: Perception Factors: the witness viewed the crime in poor light, at night, against back lighting, from a great distance, in the fog, or very briefly. Attention Factors: presence of weapons or gore that narrow attention away from the perpetrator's features, many people are present, noise, lots of distraction. Unfamiliarity Factors: perpetrator was a stranger; events were unexpected; cross racial identification was involved. Post-Event Factors: witness has learned new information after first describing the crime. Time Factors: long delay between witnessing and reporting, and between reporting and testifying. Investigation Characteristics. The negative factors include: Questioning Factors: misleading, leading, biased or pressure questioning of the witness. Lineup Construction Factors: Fairness of the lineup (do all individuals have an equal chance of being picked based on witness description), type of lineup (showup, photospread, parade, mug-shot), size of line-up. Lineup Presentation Factors: Lineup instructions (biased or unbiased admonition about responding), presentation of lineup (individuals shown together or successively), non-blind presentation (does the policeman know who the suspect is), multiple presentations (has the witness seen the suspect or picture since the crime). CLICK here to view our latest research publication on the factors that affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications: Ralph Haber and Lyn Haber (submitted for publication) Eyewitness accuracy when making an identification in a lineup. This paper documents evidence that eyewitnesses make identification errors 50% of the time when viewing a lineup. CLICK here to view our Case Citations for cases involving eyewitness identification. CLICK here to return to Home Page. Recovered MemoryWe provide expert testimony on the factors that affect recovered memory accuracy A memory is called "recovered" if (a) it pertains to an event that occurred to the witness/victim in the past, (b) it was not reported or described at the time it occurred, (c) it was not reported or remembered in the interim so that the witness/victim acted as if the event had not occurred, and (d) it is now remembered and reported. The majority of recovered memories produced in court testimony by witness/victims are of sexual and physical abuse that occurred in childhood. Suggestibility Factors. Research shows that such reports are more likely to occur following suggestions, psychotherapy, hypnosis, intense questioning, or instructions to imagine such events. Further, the events that prompt the "recovery" are closely tied to such influences. When such influences are present, the "recovered memory" report is usually inaccurate. Prior Report Factors. Many so-called "recovered" memories have been described before, and the witness/victim has been well aware of the event all along. In such cases, the report is more likely to be accurate, and the evaluation of the accuracy of the memory depends on the evidence supporting the earlier reports. Corroborating Evidence Factors. Frequently, there is no evidence to support the accuracy of the recovered memory, other than the claim made by the witness/victim. When other evidence fails to confirm the recovered memory, researchers have argued that it is more likely to be inaccurate. When independent corroborating evidence supports the memory, researchers have argued that it is more likely to be accurate. Factors that Make a Recovered Memory More Likely to be Accurate. (a) The presence of a defined trigger, or reminder, such as returning to the location for the first time since the event; (b) the memory is entirely produced by the witness, and has not been suggested or influenced by other people; (c) there is independent supporting evidence that the events occurred; and (d) the event is consistent with known facts about the character, environment, etc., of the alleged perpetrator. CLICK here to view our latest research publication on the factors that affect the accuracy of recovered memories: Lyn Haber and Ralph Haber (1998). Criteria for judging the admissibility of eyewitness testimony of long past events. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, Vol. 4, pp. 1135-1159. CLICK here to view our Case Citations for cases involving recovered memory. CLICK here to return to Home Page. Fingerprint IdentificationWe provide expert testimony on the factors that affect the accuracy of fingerprint identifications Crime Scene Investigation Factors: adequate documentation of location of fingerprint, chain of custody, elimination prints, qualifications and training of crime scene investigators. Latent Fingerprint Factors: quality of latent prints, including how much area of fingerprint detail, its location on finger, clarity of print, smudging, degree of pressure, overlay or underlay of other prints and dirt, type of surface, medium in which print was laid down, how it was lifted, does location make sense. Comparison Methodology Factors: was AFIS used; blind verification (if any), methods employed to make comparisons, evidence of error rate of the methodology. Examiner Error Factors: training, years of experience, certification of examiner, evidence of examiner performance error rate. Scientific Support Factors: evidence on scientific tests of uniqueness of latent prints, evidence of a quantification of the usability of a latent print, evidence on standards required to declare an identification. CLICK here to view our latest publication on the research evidence regarding the accuracy of fingerprint comparisons: Lyn Haber and Ralph Haber (2004). Error rates for human latent fingerprint examiners. In N. Ratha & R. M. Bolle (Eds.), Advances in Automated Fingerprint Recognition (Chapter 17, pp. 337-358). New York: Springer-Verlag Publishers. CLICK here to view our Case Citations for cases involving fingerprint comparisons. CLICK here to return to Home Page. Child WitnessesWe provide expert testimony on the factors that affect the accuracy of children as witnesses Interview procedures: who questions the child, the experience of the interviewer, how many people are asking questions, where the interview takes place, who is present. Questioning protocol: how questions are asked, use of models, how the child answers (show versus tell), use of leading, misleading, biased, presuppositions, and pressured questions. Linguistic Level: comprehension and production of language. Suggestibility: who has discussed the crime with the child, when, and how often. Age of child at time of crime; time elapsed between crime and child's first report; age at time of testimony. Factors that are Likely to Make Children's memory Accurate: (a) the event was familiar in the child's experience; (b) the child immediately told the event to a trusted adult; (c) the child's language level is adequate to describe the event coherently; (d) no one pressured the child to tell what happened; (e) the adult asked no leading or biased questions; (f) no discussion of the event occurred thereafter with the child; and (g) the child then testified under emotionally safe and supported conditions. Factors that are Likely to Make Children's Memory Inaccurate: (a) the event was novel; (b) the event was frightening; (c) the child first reported the event to an unfamiliar person or to an authority figure; (d) the child's language level is very elementary (this problem can be addressed by appropriate questioning); (e) incorrect questioning procedures were used; (f) the child was required to report the story often; and (g) the child testified in an unsupportive context. The best sourcebook on child witnesses is: Stephen Ceci and Maggie Bruck (1995). Jeopardy in the Courtroom; A Scientific Analysis of Children's Testimony. Washington: American Psychological Association Books. CLICK here to view our Case Citations for cases involving children's memory. CLICK here to return to Home Page. Language and LinguisticsWe provide expert testimony on linguistics and language Sociolinguistics: Racial or sexual verbal and nonverbal harassment; language use in context. Neurolinguistics: Effects of injuries to the brain on language comprehension, speech, and memory; patterns of recovery. Psycholinguistics: language assessment, analysis of level of comprehension and production of normal, language delayed, language impaired, and bilingual children. Authorship: linguistic analyses may exclude an alleged authorship. Interviewing Children: How to question a child to get the most accurate and extensive answers. Factors in questioning that lead to inaccurate answers, including : who questions the child; the training of the interviewer; how many people are asking questions; where the interview takes place; who is present. Questioning Protocol: How questions are asked, use of models; how the child answers (show vs. tell), use of leading, misleading, biased, presuppositions, and pressured questions. Content Analysis: analysis of changes in testimony as a result of leading, misleading, biased or linguistically pressured questions; interpretation of meaning of documents or spoken language; interpretation of children's responses. Language training: assessment of adequacy of language training programs. CLICK here to view our Case Citations for cases involving linguistic issues. CLICK here to return to Home Page. SafetyWe provide expert testimony on factors that affect safety We apply the results of human factors research to the facts of a specific case. Human Factors is a scientific discipline that performs basic and applied research on dangerous or hazardous conditions arising from the interaction of people with their environment, especially its man-made features. This research provides guidelines and recommendations regarding requirements for design, maintenance, warnings, and training, and to governmental agencies responsible for regulations and laws. Definitions of hazards: What constitutes a danger or hazard, and was one present. Avoidable and Unavoidable Hazards: Was the danger known; was it obvious. Was the hazard unavoidable. Could the danger have been eliminated or reduced by redesign. Requirements for warnings: Was a warning needed or unnecessary; what it must state; who was responsible for providing the warning. Adequacy, design and evaluation of warnings: Was this warning adequate, did it conform to the research findings on what kinds of warnings are heeded. Training and instructional programs: Was any specific instruction or training required to avoid the dangers and hazards. Who should have provided the instruction or training. Were the instructions and training adequate. CLICK here to view our latest research paper on the criteria for warnings, instructions and training: Lyn Haber and Ralph Haber (2001, unpublished). Human factors issues in safety litigation. Draft available. CLICK here to view our Case Citations for cases involving warnings, product design, and instructions and training. CLICK here to return to Home Page. AccidentsWe provide expert testimony on the factors that affect accidents We apply the results of Human Factors research to the facts of a specific case. Human Factors is a scientific discipline that performs basic and applied research on hazardous conditions arising from the interaction of people with their environment, especially its man-made features. This research provides guidelines and recommendations regarding the analysis of the reconstruction of accidents, the causation of accidents, the role of perception, reaction time and human error in accidents, and the interaction of human capabilities with equipment design, environmental design and maintenance. The research is used by governmental agencies responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of regulations and laws. Human Responses: Calculation and assessment of perception time, decision time and reaction time; and the assignment of human error in accident analyses. Analysis of Equipment: Did the accident involve the use of equipment or designed environment, and if so, was the design adequate and appropriate to human usage, and was it well manufactured and maintained. If the operation involved known dangers or hazards, had they been mitigated to greatest extent possible; were necessary warnings in place and appropriate. Slip and Fall Accidents: : Were potential conditions that cause or increase slip and fall accidents identified and included in design and maintenance; were they adequately mitigated by design, maintenance, or warnings. CLICK here to read the latest research paper by Ralph and Lyn Haber on the investigation of automobile accidents: Ralph Haber and Lyn Haber (2003). Eyewitness testimony about traffic accidents. In Robert Dewar and Paul Olson (Editors), Human Factors in Automobile Accident Reconstruction (Ch 21, pp. 663-696). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers and Judges Publishers. CLICK here to view our Case Citations for cases involving accident analyses. CLICK here to return to Home Page. |
 |
| [Home] [Ralph Haber] [Lyn Haber] [Research] [Presentations] [Case Citations] |
| [Attorney Guidelines] [Contact] |