How a horrific 1984 attack and its tragic outcome fostered a bond that could change police investigations

Phoenix, Arizona: In 1984, North Carolina woman Jennifer Thompson was raped at knifepoint. With astonishing presence of mind, Thompson focused on remembering her assailant's face through the horrifying ordeal. When this was over, she was going to make sure justice was delivered.

That justice seems to have arrived when she picked Ronald Cotton as her attacker out of a police lineup. Cotton spent 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

In 1995, Cotton’s conviction was overturned when DNA evidence exonerated him. Putting aside the memory, regret, and injustice of the tragic series of events that led to that point, Thompson and Cotton co-authored the book 'Picking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption'.

The case shed light on an issue that had been well-known in law enforcement circles but little beyond: Eyewitnesses are unreliable, and have led to nearly 70% of wrongful convictions uncovered through DNA testing. So why do our eyes, or rather our brains deceive us? 

That is the question that Dr. Laura Smalarz, an associate professor of psychology at Arizona State University’s School of Interdisciplinary Forensics, hopes to answer. Smalarz’s research focuses on understanding the causes of eyewitness misidentification and developing strategies to prevent it.

Smalarz and Thompson will speak about eyewitness identification at the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police's annual conference on September 12 in Maricopa, Arizona. In an interview with ASU News, Smalarz discussed her research, which applies social psychology to the legal system, specifically in the realm of eyewitness identification from police lineups.

Smalarz investigates various factors that can lead to mistaken identifications. One key issue is the involvement of case detectives in the lineup process. "When someone who knows the case administers the lineup, they may unknowingly influence the eyewitness’s decision, increasing the risk of misidentification," she explained.

Her research supports the adoption of double-blind lineup procedures, in which neither the administrator nor the eyewitness knows which lineup member is the suspect. This approach minimizes bias and helps prevent errors.

Smalarz also advocates for collecting confidence statements from eyewitnesses immediately after an identification is made. "Eyewitness confidence at the time of the lineup is much more reliable than confidence expressed later during testimony," she said.

At the upcoming conference, Smalarz will highlight nine scientific best practices for collecting eyewitness identification evidence. Arizona currently lacks statewide procedures for this process, so Smalarz hopes her research can guide law enforcement in adopting more reliable methods to reduce wrongful convictions.

"The case of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson shows how even a well-intentioned eyewitness can make a mistake. But with proper safeguards, we can prevent these miscarriages of justice from happening again," she says.