Psychology professor testifies about eyewitness reliability in Donahue trial

CEDAR RAPIDS — An Arkansas psychology professor testified Friday there has been research and several studies on the reliability of eyewitness identification, depending on variety of circumstances, including how a line up is conducted, race of witness and suspect and if the suspect had a head or face covering.

James Lampinen, associate chair of the psychology department at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, testified for Stanley Donahue, who is on trial for robbery and attempted murder. Lampinen said a head covering, such as a hat or hoodie, makes it more difficult to recognize someone. He said the various studies conducted by other psychologists and research for articles he has written on eyewitness identification found a head covering reduces the reliability of the witness.

During Donahue’s trial, witnesses testified and a surveillance video showed the suspect was wearing a hooded sweatshirt during the Casey’s robbery and shooting of Linn County Sheriff’s Deputy William Halverson, who responded to the alarm June 20, 2021.

Lampinen said others factors also impact reliability, such as if a weapon is involved, stress levels and lighting.

The professor was the first witness for defense and may be the only one. After the prosecution rested, Donahue confirmed on the record, but without the jury present, that he wouldn’t testify.

Sixth Judicial District Christopher Bruns asked Donahue if it was his decision not to testify and he said it was.

Closings will be Monday.

Lampinen, during his testimony, said one study showed one scenario where a “suspect” had a weapon and in the second scenario there wasn’t a weapon. The study found when a weapon is present it reduces reliability because the witnesses are more focused on the weapon and less on the suspect’s face to identify them.

In the studies where a suspect is from a different race than the witness, the accuracy is also lower, Lampinen said. One study involved sending “actors” to a convenience store who were Black, white and Hispanic. They all paid for items with pennies and then asked the clerks for directions.

A few minutes later the clerks were asked to identify these actors in photos and the clerks were more successful identifying the actors of their same race, Lampinen said.

Lampinen didn’t say line ups can’t be reliable, but only if they were properly conducted because the instructions given by law enforcement could influence the witnesses on their identification. Studies have found that if an officer told the witness the guilty person is in the line up, that can impact the witness’ recognition, even if it’s wrong.

He said properly conducted line ups, according to studies, should include several people who are similar in appearance and include the suspect. The witnesses shouldn’t be given any feedback from the police about their decision or be given the identity of the actual suspect.

Lampinen said he has two major concerns with “show ups,” which is a witness being shown one photo and asked if it is the suspect. They are suggestive because the witness tends to think an officer wouldn’t show the photo if it wasn’t the guilty person.

His other concern is that it could have dire consequences if that person is truly innocent. In a line up, Lampinen said, the witness isn’t focused on one person and there is less chance of identifying the wrong person.

Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks, on cross, said a line up isn’t needed if someone is caught at the scene of the crime, caught in possession of stolen items, or shows the crime being committed and physical evidence found at the scene leading back to that person.

Lampinen agreed.

Maybanks also asked if the suspect has “one-in-a-million features,” would a line up be needed.

Lampinen said probably not.

Maybanks was referring to testimony earlier this week that talked about Donahue’s unique walk.

Donahue walked with his feet spaced shoulder width apart and “waddled” — shifting his weight from one foot to the other, Sgt. Yon Abel said.

Lampinen testified out of order so he could travel back to Arkansas on Friday. When he was finished, the prosecution continued its case with Abel, who testified about Donahue’s interview after he was arrested June 21, 2021.

Investigators say Donahue fled the Casey’s store after firing 10 shots at Halverson, striking him seven times in the torso and leg. He was arrested the next day on Aldridge Road, near Coggon.

In the video of an interview played for the jurors, Donahue wouldn’t give his name and wouldn’t answer most of Abel’s questions.

When asked his name, Donahue said “No name.” Abel asked if his name was Stanley Donahue, but Donahue wouldn’t admit it.

Donahue did tell Abel he was homeless and didn’t have a car.

When Abel asked if he had a Dodge van, Donahue admitted he did. Donahue said he bought it three days before.

Abel asked how he got to the Casey’s and Donahue said he “hitchhiked.” Then he said he had Alzheimer’s. He admitted he was 36 years old at the time. Later he said 25.

Donahue, more than once, said he didn’t know anything about the robbery.

He also denied having shoes. He didn’t have any on when he was arrested, but deputies testified during the trial they found his hiking boots in a ditch, near where he was arrested.

Abel, in the video of the interview, him he believes Donahue had a gun, but Donahue denied it. Donahue said he never “touched” a gun.

Donahue explained the cash and change they found in his pockets when he was arrested was from him “panhandling.”

Abel was attempting to ask him about the robbery and shooting, but Donahue would only say, “Whatever happened, happened.”

After the video, Maybanks asked Abel if there was a line up done in this case.

Abel said it wasn’t needed. Donahue was the registered owner of the van and of the gun used to shoot Halverson. And Halverson identified Donahue was the person who shot him.

Comments: (319) 398-8318; trish.mehaffey@thegazette.com