Practical Concerns for Investigations and Courtroom: A Commentary on Brewer and Doyle (2021)

Comments on an article by Neil Brewer and James Doyle (see record 2021-19175-001). Brewer and Doyle have initiated a discussion about alternative means of securing eyewitness identification evidence. The commenting authors share the concerns of Brewer and Doyle on a number of foundational points. Current best-practice recommendations are an immense improvement for collection of eyewitness evidence but still not the panacea for the tenacious problem of eyewitness error. Even when trained investigators use science-based best practices, eyewitnesses make known errors at unacceptable levels. The commenting authors also recognize that current practices often do not capture the richness of eyewitness memory. A police incident report that simply notes a lineup outcome in categorical terms (positive ID or no ID of the suspect) provides insufficient information and may be misleading. Delivering more informative evidence to investigators, attorneys, and triers-of-fact is a laudable goal. Practicability provides the bridge from scientific recommendation to law enforcement and legal policy. In this commentary, the authors focus on four practical aspects of eyewitness evidence. These points illuminate some seeming differences in their assumptions compared to those of Brewer and Doyle that lead to concerns about their specific proposal. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)