Eyewitness Identification: Recognition vs Resemblance

Eye witness testimony is one of the most controversial forms of evidence encountered in the courts. The reason is that human memory is influenced by a number of factors including

1. Environmental Conditions (lighting, weather, sound, etc)
2. Duration of observation
3. Environmental Stressors (being shot at, car accident, being chased, etc)
4. Physical or mental impairments which can be temporary (drunk/high) or permanent (glaucoma)
5. Harboring any cultural, racial, or other relevent bias.
6. Harboring any motive to lie about the identification.

But these conditions seldom come into play when the witness recognizes the person, place, or thing. Recognition is the identification of something that the observer is very familiar with. The easiest example is the recognition of a spouse. If a woman says “my husband hit me” the police are not likely going to challenge her identification. It’s very doubtful that she could mistake a stranger for her husband (unless some of the above conditions exist). The reason is that she would be intimately familiar with her husband’s appearance. Similarly, we recognize our vehicles. It’s how we are able to pick them out in a parking lot among other similar vehicles.  We take note of many little differences that make our vehicles different from other similar models like damage, bumper stickers, add-ons, etc.

That’s not to say people can mistakenly approach the wrong vehicle or come up behind a man and touch his arm only to discover he is not your husband. These things happen before recognition. Recognition is the final stage of identification, not the beginning. When police rely on an eye-witness identification they should be asking “how” do you recognize the person, place, or thing? This is where the rubber meets the road. Police try to determine if the individual is capable of recognizing the item. For example, if a man says he saw a 1963 Chevrolet Corvette speeding away from the crime scene we would ask “how do you know it was a 1963?”. If the man is a mechanic or Corvette aficionado and can explain that he recognized the rear split window available only on the 1963 model he becomes more believable.  Witnesses may even recognize specific aspects of the item which, when taken with other accounts, might strengthen the overall association (partial identification). For example, one witness may recognize the vehicle and color. Another witness may not be able to tell you what kind of vehicle (or even the color) but recognizes a particular bumper sticker that they themselves have on their car.

The real problem with eyewitness “identifications” is when they fall short of recognition. This is sometimes referred to as resemblance. Certain words or phrases usually tip off investigators that the witness is relying on resemblance more than recognition. Resemblance occurs when the mind tries to find an “approximate” description based on subjective criteria or perceptions. This is the least reliable type of identification. Statements containing words such as “like”, “sort of”, “maybe”, “could have” all point towards a resemblance identification.

1. “It kind of looked like a Chevy Blazer or Ford Bronco”
2. “He was old, like maybe 40″
3. “It could have been blue…or maybe red”

These statements can’t be ignored but you shouldn’t base a case upon them. There is simply too much indecision. When you have multiple witnesses offering this type of “identification” then things can really get confusing. Witnesses can give widely contradictory statements leaving investigators scratching their heads. That is where the additional questioning comes in to see if the witness recognizes the person, place, or thing and how they recognize it.

As authors you should consider how your characters might perceive certain data to make identifications. If your witness is going to be reliable they should have some experience or background that has educated them to make that identification.  Your detectives also need to question any identification to determine the reliability of the statement, unless of course you want to present an incomplete or sloppy investigation. Your detective may be inexperienced or too gun-ho to make an arrest and rely too heavily on an eyewitness. In the end your DA character is the one who ultimately makes the decision as to the weight of the witnesses account. Eyewitness “identifications” that prove unreliable can be effective tools to quickly change the storyline and keep your reader engaged.