Witness Interviews 1. What time element should be followed in interviewing witnesses?

Effects of long delay Notion that memory fades as the retention interval, the period of time between viewing an event and being questioned about it, increases Activities that eyewitnesses carry out or information they learn after they observe an event, which is termed postevent information, can alter their memory of the event. For example, simply talking to other witnesses can introduce new (not always accurate) details into ones memory. We know that most witnesses do share information about serious events such as crimes. We all have experienced the tip of the tongue phenomenon, when we know an answer or a persons name but cant dredge it out of our memory st ore. The wording of questions can also influence retrieval. In recalling information from our memory, we often generate memories that are accurate but are not relevant to the task at hand. Victims sometimes pick from a lineup the person whom they have seen before but who is not the actual criminal. This phenomenon, called unconscious transference.

2. What are the variables that should be considered when interviewing (eye) witnesses? System variable refers to those factors that are under the control of the criminal justice system (e.g., the instructions given to eyewitnesses when they consider a lineup and the composition of that lineup). The term estimator variable refers to factors that are beyond the control of the justice system and whose impact on the reliability of the eyewitness can only be estimated (e.g., the lighting conditions at the time of the crime and whether the culprit was wearing a disguise). Witness Stress Level Presence of weapon Race of eyewitness Physiognomic variability In-group/out-group differences Age and gender of eyewitness

A third variablea postdiction variabledoes not directly affect the reliability of an identification, but is a measurement of some process that correlates with reliability (Wells et al., 2006). The confidence that a witness feels for an identification or the speed with which a witness identifies someone from a lineup are examples of postdiction variables. 3. What does Philippines jurisprudence say about eye witness identification?

Well entrenched in our criminal law and procedure is the rule that, unless otherwise specifically required, the testimony of a ingle eyewitness if credible and trustworthy is sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And since the determination of credibility is within the province of the trial court which has the opportunity to examine and observe the demeanor of witnesses appellate courts will not generally interfere in this jurisdiction. Thus, since it appears that the trial court did not overlook facts or circumstances which may otherwise affect the result of the case, its findings regarding the credibility of witnesses cannot be overturned. The trial court is in a better position to decide this question after having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. Hence when the trial court, as in the case at bench, declares that the testimony of A2C Monteverde was positive, clear and convincing, its declaration must be sustained and respected. Furthermore, absent any showing that A2C Monteverde was actuated by any improper motive, his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. [People vs. Samson, 244 SCRA 146(1995)] Where the credibility of a witness is an issue, the established rule is that great respect is accorded to the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court. It is in the best position to determine the issue of credibility of a witness, having heard his testimony and observed his deportment and manner of testifying. But, where there is a showing that the trial court overlooked material and relevant facts, which could affect the outcome of a case, the Court will not hesitate to set aside the lower courts findings and assessments regarding the credibility of witnesses. The identification of an accused through his voice is acceptable, particularly if the witness knows the accused personally. But the identification must be categorical and certain. We observed that the witness changed her version a number of times. A startling or frightful experience creates an indelible impression in the mind such that the experience can be recalled vividly. Where the witness, however, fails to remain consistent on important details, such as the identity of the person whose voice she heard, a suspicion is created that material particulars in her testimony had indeed been altered. If an eyewitness contradicts himself on a vital question, the element of reasonable doubt is injected and cannot be lightly disregarded. [People vs. Preciados, 349 SCRA 1(2001)] This Court has held in a number of cases that denial and alibi are weak defenses, which cannot prevail against positive identification. People v. Caisip thus held: Positive identification where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter prevails over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. [People vs. Agcanas, 658 SCRA 842(2011)] According to accused-appellant, he was simply framed-up and that another person also raped the victim. He avers that his allegation is supported by the testimony of the

victims mother Jenelyn that the victim was likewise abused by the latters husband. The categorical testimony of the victim that she was raped by accused-appellant cannot be overturned by the bare denial and defense of being framed-up interposed by accusedappellant. The victim made a positive, clear and categorical declaration pointing to accused-appellant as the person who sexually ravaged her. Cases subject of our review, especially those in the nature of child sexual abuse, often involve victims of tender years. On account of the increased number of children coming into the realm of the judicial system, we adopted the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness to govern the examination of child witnesses who may either be victims, accused or witnesses to a crime. This rule ensures an environment that allows children to give reliable and complete evidence, minimize trauma, encourage children to testify in legal proceedings, and facilitate the ascertainment of truth. [People vs. Baring, Jr., 374 SCRA 696(2002)] 4. How credible are eyewitnesses?

5. Are there any issues on memory and perception that should be taken into account when interviewing eyewitnesses or witnesses in general? The study of eyewitness identification grew out of our understanding of the basic principles involved in perception and memory. We are all prone to making errors in perceiving and remembering events that we experience. But eyewitnesses must remem- ber experiences that are typically brief, complicated, and sometimes very frightening. So they are espe- cially prone to error. To illustrate these errors, we consider the steps involved in acquiring and recalling information from the outside worldsteps an eye- witness must take to record a memory. Memory: Encoding - refers to the acquisition of information. Many aspects of a stimulus can affect how it is encoded; stimuli that are only briefly seen or heard cannot be encoded fully, of course. The complexity of a stimulus also affects its encoding. As the complexity of an event increases (consider an earthquake, explosion, or tsunami), some aspects of the event probably will be misremem- bered, while others will be accurately recalled. Characteristics of the witness also affect encoding. We all differ in visual acuity and hearing ability. When we have experience perceiving a stimulus we usually notice its details better than when we perceive something new. This is why experienced judges notice flaws in a gymnasts performance that the res t of us can detect only in a slow-motion replay. Different expectancies about upcoming events also influence how they are encoded; in general, we have a tendency to see what we expect to see. Storage - The second step in building a memory is the storage of stimulus information.

Retrieval - The third and final step in establishing memory is the retrieval of information.

6. What are repressed and recorded memories and what are their roles with regard witnesses? Retrieving memories over short time periods, as eyewitnesses must do, is a complex task. Yet it pales in comparison with retrieving memories that have been stored over lengthy intervals. Two basic processes need to be distinguished in understanding longlost memories. The first is natural forgetting, which tends to occur when people simply do not think about events that happened years earlier. Just as you might have trouble remembering the name of your fourth-grade teacher, witnesses to crimes, accidents, and business transactions are likely to for- get the details of these events, if not the entire event, after the passage of months or years. Such forgetting or misremembering is even more likely when the event is confused with prior or subse- quent experiences that bear some resemblance to it. No one disputes the reality of natural forgetting. Significantly more controversial is a second type of lost memorythe memories that are presumed to have been repressed over long time periods. This process involves events that are thought to be so trau- matizing that individuals bury them deeply in their unconscious mind through a process of emotionally motivated forgetting called repression. For exam- ple, soldiers exposed to the brutal horrors of combat and individuals who experienced a natural disaster such as an earthquake are sometimes unable to re- member the traumas they obviously suffered. In such cases, repression is thought to serve a protective function by sparing the individual from having to remember and relive horrifying scenes. These repressed memories sometimes stay unconscious, and hence forgotten, unless and until they are spontaneously recalled or retriggered by exposure to some aspect of the original experience. (The smell of gasoline might remind a soldier of the battlefield, or the sight of an unusual cloud formation might remind an earthquake victim of the skys appearance on the day of the disas- ter.) But the notion of repression is highly controversial; some suggest that repression has never been proven to exist and that the inability to remember traumatic effects can be explained by ordinary forgetting. A related unconscious process is dissociation, in which victims of abuse or other traumas are thought to escape the full impact of an experience by psycho- logically detaching themselves from it. This process is thought to be particularly strong in children, who, because they are still forming integrated personalities, find it easier to escape from the pain of abuse by fantasizing about made-up individuals and imagining that the abuse is happening to those others. Many clinical psychologists believe that such early episodes of dissociation, involving unique ideas, feelings, and behavior, form the beginning of the altered personal- ities that are found in dissociative identity disorder (formerly called multiple personality disorder). 7. Who are vulnerable witnesses? Were there any vulnerable witnesses in the arson case that happened? Children

Defense witnesses 8. In the event that there was a child witness or any other vulnerable witness included in the arson case, how should the police proceed? The section on vulnerable people emphasises, as have many guidance documents on investigative interviewing (e.g., Milne & Bull, 1999), the importance of the phased approach of (i) establishing rapport, (ii) seeking free recall, (iii) questioning/question types and (iv) closure. Such a phased approach is based on what is now a wealth of research from largely cognitive psychology (Bull & Barnes, 1995), but the section goes beyond this by bringing in relevant ideas from social psychology. Each of these two main sources of relevant research will now briefly be summarised. Identification Parades 1. What are the usual forms of lineups? 2. What procedure needs to be followed with respect to a proper lineup or identification parade? 3. Was this procedure followed in the arson case? 4. What issues can arise with respect to improper lineups? Lineup Instructions: There is ample evidence that when conducting a lineup, an investigator should instruct the witness that the offender may or may not be present (Malpass & Devine, 1981). Without this instruc- tion, eyewitnesses may assume that their task is to pick someone, so they choose the person who looks most like the perpetrator. This instruction may be especially important for older eyewitnesses who are less likely to remember the instruction and less apt to make a correct identification (Rose, Rull, & Vrij, 2005). The vast majority of police officers report that they give eyewitnesses the option of not making a selection from the lineup (Wogalter, Malpass & McQuiston, 2004). Based on her analysis of studies that examined the presence of a might or might not be present instruction, Psychology Professor Nancy Steblay found that this instruction reduced the rate of mistaken identifications. Selection of What procedure should be used with respect to a scent lineup? What is the validity of a scent lineup? Can evidence be solely based on a lineup or identification? Does Philippine jurisprudence accept the validity of line up procedures? Has any case used a scent lineup?

5. 6. 7. 8.