A Criminal Report: Curtis Flowers & Eyewitness

Credibility

Nourhan Habib
11302215
Forensic Psychology Resit (R-34181-11302215-14069)

08.10.2022

11302215 1



Judicial Systems are expected to support the aggrieved victims in disputes and

disagreements, in order to defend them and punish criminals through the application of legal

laws. Ideally all innocent individuals would lead a normal life in peace whilst most of the

known and captured criminals are behind bars. However, sometimes the innocent gets

convicted at fault for a crime they have not committed, as in the case of Curtis Flowers.

Accordingly, the judicial system relies heavily on experts from different scopes of life to

assist both the jury as well as the court with their knowledge and expertise in given cases,

these experts are known as Expert Witness. An expert witness is accepted by the judge and is

seen as educated, trained and experienced in the related, judged matter. Among these experts

are forensic psychologists. The American Psychological Association defines Forensic

Psychology as the application of clinical psychology to a forensic setting (Ward, 2013).

In this report the case of Curtis Flowers is reviewed and analysed. Curtis Flowers an innocent

individual who served 23 years in jail for a crime of false conviction due to; prosecutor’s

racial discrimination, fabricated eyewitness testimonies, interrogation misconduct, unethical

line up setup, in addition to witness intimidation and suggestibility. Additionally, an

investigation of memory issues of witnessed and its impact on criminal court cases will be

discussed.

Eyewitness testimony is a necessary element used to bring criminals to justice, however, its

inaccuracy often led to wrongful convictions (Wise et al., 2014, p.1). According to the

Association for Psychological Science (APS) during the review of the Innocence Project it

has been concluded that at least 262 cases of the 375 cases resulted in wrongful convictions

due to inaccuracy of eyewitness testimonies (2022). Therefore, the credibility of eyewitness

testimony is controversial and concerns over memory, prosecutorial misconduct and the

effect of misinformation arose. Witness intimidation is “the practice of threatening, hearing,

or otherwise instilling fear in a victim of, or witness to, a crime, in an effort to prevent him or

11302215 2



her from reporting a crime or testifying in court.” (Chen, 2009, p.837). In the case of Curtis

Flowers multiple prosecutorial misconducts occurred, including witness intimidation, witness

suggestibility, unethical interview techniques and interrogation misconduct.

Court Case

On July 16, 1996, a murder of four individuals took place at Tardy Furniture, in

Winona, Memphis. Earlier on the same day, Doyle Simpson Curtis Flower’s uncle reported a

loss of his pistol from his car. Experts from the police department found similarity in the

bullet recovered from the crime scene to those from Flower’s uncle’s pistol. A few days prior

to the incident, Flower’s caused unintentional damage to the transported goods whilst driving

the store’s truck, which was to be compensated for through his pay. On the following day,

Flower’s missed work and the store immediately replaced him by hiring somebody else.

These incidents were seen as Flower’s motive to steal his uncle’s gun angrily at the loss of

his job. Despite the mismatch of Flower’s DNA and those collected from the crime scene, the

detectives found gunshot residue on Flower’s hands, which he claimed to be residue from the

battery of a lead car as well as from using fireworks the day before the crime was reported.

Gunshot residues are similar to residues caused from fireworks (Grima, Butler, Hanson &

Elmouna, 2012) and science proves that such residues may last a long time. Many individuals

moved forward to give their testimonies which could indicate a probable bribe. Those

testimonies included informants that were present in jail whilst Flowers was in lock up during

the investigation. Those informants stated that Flowers informed them of murdering those 4

individuals. In the end the investigators relied solely on the inaccurate witnesses’ testimonies.

In addition to inaccurate testimonials, the District Attorney Doug Evans violated the federal

law by eliminating jurors of colour.

11302215 3



Literature Review and Forensic Psychology

Memory is comprised of three stages; encoding, storage and retrieval (Foster, 2008).

Each stage is prone to varied possibilities of distortion due to multiple factors. During the

first stage, the encoding stage physical factors such as the clarity and accuracy of the eyesight

could be affected, for example if the witness is not wearing their glasses. As well as the light

level in the place of incident, and the distance between the witness and the crime scene.

Meanwhile the stress induced by the internal fear due to the pressure of being forced to give a

testimony, or the scare of being present during a crime scene or near a weapon are examples

of the psychological factors that affect the encoding process. The effect of stress on memory

is evident in a study done in 2004, where 500 soldiers were interrogated in both high and low

level of stress during real war imitation. It was recorded that the accuracy of the high stress

interrogations was only 38% & only 58% of them identified the wrongful person whilst those

who faced low stress level interrogations had a 71% accuracy and only 25% of them

identified the wrongful person (Morgan, 2004). Another study by Pickel, Ross & Truelove

documented that individuals who face a weapon by a criminal fear for their safety causing

them to be in distress that impairs their overall memory, especially that it directs their focus

on the weapon instead of focusing on the criminal’s appearance this is known as the weapons

focus effect (2006). The second stage of memory is responsible for information storage.

Memories are believed to fade away or become distorted through time (Schacter, 2001),

accordingly the witnesses’ accuracy of identifying criminals; decays and decreased overtime,

especially if the time between the crime and court case testimonies are long. Lastly, the

information retrieval stage of memory is often jeopardised and negatively affected by

pressures caused by interrogations, this is known as interrogative suggestibility. McAuliff &

Kovera describe that witnesses could incorrectly suggest the criminal that the interviewers

monitoring is mostly leaning towards due to their influence & pressure (2007).

11302215 4



Interrogative suggestibility comprises of multiple elements, first the nature of social

interaction. An interrogative interview with the police is type of social interaction that is

closed, often conducted in a closed room and the closed environment is purposefully to

eliminate or reduce interruptions (Irving & Hilgendorf, 1980). The normal flow of

conversation done in the interrogation room, ensures control and power by the police officer,

which heightens the level of stress and anxiety for the interviewee thus increasing

interrogative suggestibility (Sherif, 1936). It drives the interviewee to become reluctant to

oppose the ideas of the interrogator, and in most cases often accept, agree with the

suggestions given by the interrogator as well as make wrongful decisions (Canter, 2010,

p.107). Likewise, the psychological distance between the interrogator and the individual in

question increases the level of interrogative suggestibility (Bain & Baxter, 2000).

Second is the questioning procedure; despite that the intentions of the interrogator are to

collect facts about a given incident, yet both emotions and opinions become involved. The

questions mostly encourage recalling of memory that occurred in the past, which is highly

impacted by the sensory involvements experienced by the interviewee/witness, thus leading

to interrogative suggestibility (Gudjonsson, 1987).

Third is suggestive questions which could be through leading questions or negative feedback.

Leading questions as described by Loftus are questions that imply a specific response or

introduce incorrect information in the interrogation (1979). In 1974 there was a study aimed

to view the effect of suggestive questions and wording on the accuracy of testimonies. In the

study different groups were given a video of a car crash. A week later they were asked to

return to give their recollection of memory of the video. Each group were asked a question

with different wordings. The first group was asked “How fast were the cars going when they

contacted each other?” meanwhile the second group was asked “How fast were the cars going

when they smashed into one another?”. It was concluded that the first group estimated a 31

11302215 5



miles per hour, whilst the second group assumed a 41 miles per hour. The difference of their

estimation was the result of the minor change of wordings. Additionally, the first group was

asked “Did you see the broken headlight?” and the second group was asked “Did you see a

broken headlight?”. The results concluded that the first group were two times likely to have

seen the headlight when compared to the responses of the second group (Loftus & Palmer,

1974). Thus, wordings have a high impact on interrogative suggestibility. Negative feedback

is usually known as “post-identification feedback effect”. It was described by Baxter, Boon &

Marley (2006) as “any kind of disapproval or criticism of the interview, whether overt or

implicit”. In simple words, negative feedback occurs when they interrogator disbeliefs the

explanation or the story of the interviewee. In other scenarios, the interrogator would repeat

the questions both directly and indirectly in an attempt to get a different answer from the

interviewee which implies disbelief of the story given by the interviewee (Gudjonsson, 1984).

As a result of the negative feedback, the interviewee could change their testimony, or

incorporate answers based on the suggestions hinted at them through the leading questions.

Interrogators responses such as “Good, we thought he might be the one who did it” enhances

the witness’ possible false accuracy of criminal identification (Douglass, Neuschatz, Imrich,

& Wilkinson, 2010).

Fourth is the acceptance of stimulus message, this occurs when the respondent perceives the

message as credible. This is highly affected by the cognitive set of the interviewee. This set

affects the witnesses’ choice of expectation, desire, and or need (Haward, 1963). Interviewees

who view the judicial system as corrupt would experience interrogation differently from

those who strongly believe in the system. Personality traits such as anxiety is one of many

factors that could affect the acceptance of stimulus message (Gudjonsson, 2003). Fifth is

behavioural response. In some situations, the interviewees may mentally agree that the

suggested information by the interrogator is more accurate, yet reject the change of given

11302215 6



witness, thus their behavioural response remain unchanged despite their mental change of

opinion.

Thus far, scientists developed two interrogative suggestibility scales to measure its level

comprising of GSS1 and GSS2 (Gudjonsson, 1984, 1987). Each scale includes 20 questions,

15 questions suggest untrue details, meanwhile the other 5 questions remain true.

Aside from memory, witnesses’ credibility remains essential. This lead to the creation

of systems that evaluate witnesses’ credibility and detect deception. These systems include

Reality Monitoring (RM), Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID) and Criteria-

Based Content Analysis (CBCA). CBCA comprises of two criteria; Unstructured Production

and Quantity of Details. This system detects the differences between imagination or

fabrication and genuine memories. Considering that real memories include higher details and

have a more spontaneous structure (Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, Memon, Rachel, & Colwell,

2007). RM evaluates the type and amount of details given in a statement. It recognises the

differences between externally generated memories derived from genuine experiences, and

the internally generated memories derived from imagination and fabrication. Externally

generated memories often include sensory details such as taste, smell, and colour, as well as

context details that include spatial and temporal relationships. Dissimilarly, internally

generated memories are formed through an individual’s cognitive processes, personal history

and emotions, accordingly it lacks the details and spontaneity found in externally generated

memories (Johnson, 1988). ACID is able to maximise the differences between honesty and

deception collected by both CBCA and RM. ACID also relies on theories of interpersonal

deception. Deceivers tend to create a fabricated script to control their information and reduce

their anxiety (Porter & Yuille, 1996), they also have to think carefully of their fabricated truth

instead of spontaneously accessing and recalling events (Colwell, Hiscock, and Memon,

2002). Thus, ACID included a certain interviewing strategies that reviews impression

11302215 7



management for deceptive witnesses and facilitating chances for honest memory recollection

for honest witnesses. It comprises of a Reality Interview that forces deceptive witnesses to

shift from their fabricated information to their memory, then a statement analysis is applied to

measure both vividness and spontaneity.

Eyewitness testimony encourages one to feel heightened sensation of guilt. And, as described

above; memories are prone to inaccuracy. Relying on inaccurate memories risk both dangers,

firstly high potentiality of wrongful convictions, and secondly failure of holding rightful

criminals accountable (Vitriol, 2008, as cited in Loftus, 2003). Thus, allowing more criminals

to live among the people inflicting more harm, meanwhile keeping away the innocent ones in

lock up.

Theory Application on Curtis Flower’s Case

Eyewitness were the major players in the case of Curtis Flowers. Initially the police

offered 30,000 Dollars to those who would offer their testimonies in the case. This

encouraged for fabricated testimonies to occur, as witnesses were hoping to benefit from the

monetary reward. During Flower’s jail time, two of his cellmates testified that he informed

them of his murder of the 4 individuals in the store, they later recanted their testimonies. It

was later known that Maurice Hawkins was promised a drop in his cocaine charge and a

pardon for a house arrest for burglary, which justifies the false testimony. Meanwhile,

Frederick Veal later revealed that the prosecution forced his testimony in exchange for a cash

reward.

Roy Harris & Clemmie Fleming who testified seeing Flower’s running early in the morning

outside the store, later changed their testimonies; Fleming explained that she was confused on

the day of the event and that she could not accurately recall the day, whilst Harris who

changed his testimony in each of the two trials, later explained that he was fearful of getting a

criminal charge or getting arrested if he had not identified Flower’s.

11302215 8



Edward McChristian who testified seeing Flowers walk past his house on the event’s day. He

later recanted his testimony explaining that he does not recall which day was it when he saw

Flowers run. He also explained that he did not want to testify fearful of his inaccuracy, yet he

was afraid of getting arrested for not complying.

Doyle Simpson, Flowers’ uncle who reported the loss of his pistol was later proved to be

deceptive during a polygraph exam.

In addition to the District Attorney Doug Evans obvious discrimination of racism when he

excluded black jurors from Flowers’ trials (Possley, 2021). Odell Hallman Jr. a drug dealer

who initially gave his testimony in favour of Flowers’ defence, later changed his testimony to

be in favour of the prosecution for 4 trials. Hallman later stated that “Doug Evans said he

would rather have a murderer in prison than a drug dealer” and promised him a waiver for his

seven felonies charges.

In the light of the above it is apparent that stimulus messages of interrogative

suggestibility occurred through both leading and suggestive questioning by the interrogators

which resulted in behavioural responses through intentionally changing and falsifying one’s

testimony. Additionally, it is found that the police had a bias towards their faulty belief of the

event, which encouraged their interrogative questions to be both deliberate and unwittingly

aimed at framing Flowers. It is probable that the police focused mostly on proving their

hypothesis than finding the actual truth through their interrogations with the eyewitnesses by

offering financial rewards in exchange for their testimonies. In some cases, it appeared likely

that the police utilised their power to inflict fear in some witnesses which led them to falsely

testify. The interrogators seemed to have lacked the proper training techniques that allows

them to carefully interrogate and allocate the deceiving testimonials. Finally, the prosecutor

had an obvious bias towards racial discrimination by eliminating the black jurors and offering

waiver of felonies to another criminal to ensure criminalising Flowers.

11302215 9



Conclusion

In the herein case, both accuracy and credibility of eye witnesses and jurors were

unjust, and resulted in wrongful conviction, which cost an innocent man decades of his life.

Legal issues of discrimination by the prosecutor was involved. Eye witness intimidation

occurred due to interrogative suggestibility. In addition to bribes through monetary rewards

and exchanges of legal favours for criminals took place. In summary, the previously

mentioned elements and factors are crucial to keeping many innocent individuals in lock up,

whilst freeing criminals.

Recommendation

In 1992, The Innocence Project succeeded at overturning 300 convictions through DNA

based exonerations. The development of similar projects is recommended. Considering the

bias and discrimination occurred by District Attorney Evans, strict protocols are

recommended to be applied for all prosecutors, by applying the Social Identify Theory.

Police could benefit greatly from enhanced interrogative trainings, to enhance their ability to

recognise false and deceptive witnesses. Interrogation meetings monitoring by Forensic

Psychologist are also recommended; it could ensure objectivity of the questions and limit

interrogative suggestibility. Lastly additional systems similar to those of CBCA, RM and

ACID are required for further enhancement and improved detection of deception, and

authenticity of witnesses’ information.

Word count: 2810

11302215 10



References

Association for Psychological Science - APS. (2022). Eyewitness error: Malleable memories,

flawed legal processes, and an opportunity to train.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/may-2022-pspilive-

eyewitness-testimony.html

Bain, S. A. & Baxter, J. S. (2000), Interrogative suggestibility: The role of interviewer

behaviour. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 5, 123–133

Baxter, J., Julian, B. & Charles, M. (2006). Interrogative pressure and responses to minimally

leading questions. Personality and Individual Differences – Personality and

Individual Differences. 40. 87-98. 10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.017.

Canter, D. (2010). Forensic Psychology-A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University

Press. file:///C:/Users/Kurleen%20R.%20Salhab/Downloads/Forensic%20Psychology

_%20A%20Very%20Short%20Introduction%20%20(%20PDFDrive%20)%20(1).pdf

Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Rachel, A., & Colwell, L. (2007). Vividness

and Spontaneity Of Statement Detail Characteristics as Predictors 0f Witness

Credibility. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 25(1), 5–30.

Colwell, K., Hiscock, C. K. & Memon, A. (2002). Interviewing techniques and the

assessment of statement credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 287-

300. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.788

Colwell, K., Hiscock, C. K., & Memon, A. (2002). Interviewing techniques and the

assessment of statement credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 287-

300. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.788

11302215 11



Chen, E. Y. (2009). VICTIM AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION. Scholar Commons | Santa

Clara University

Research. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context

=poli_sci

Douglass, A. & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of

the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 20, 859 - 869.

10.1002/acp.1237.

Douglass, A. B., Neuschatz, J. S., Imrich, J., & Wilkinson, M. (2010). Does post-

identification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification

procedures? Law and Human Behavior, 34(4), 282–

294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9189-5

Grima, M., & Butler, M., Hanson, R., & Elmouna, A. M. (2012). Firework displays as

sources of particles similar to gunshot residue. Science & justice : journal of the

Forensic Science Society. 52. 49-57. 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.04.005.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and

Individual Differences, 5(3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(84)90069-2

Gudjonsson, G. H. (1987). A parallel form of Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. British

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26(3), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-

8260.1987.tb01348.x

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook.

John Wiley & Sons Ltd: New Jersey.

Gudjonsson, G. H., & Clark, N. K. (1986). Suggestibility in police interrogation: A social

psychological model. Social Behaviour, 1(2), 83–104.

11302215 12



Hawarld, L, R. C. (1963). Reliability of corroborated police evidence, J. Forens. Sci. Soc., 3,

71.

Irving, B., Hilgendorf, L. (1980). Police Interrogation: The Psychological Approach

(Research Studies No. 1). London: HMSO.

Johnson, M. K. (1988). Reality monitoring: An experimental phenomenological approach.

.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(4), 390-394.

Loftus, E. F. (1979). The Malleability of Human Memory: Information introduced after we view

an incident can transform memory. American Scientist, 67(3), 312–320.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27849223

Loftus, E. F. & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example

of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3.

McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2007). Applied Cognitive Psychology. Estimating the

effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors

something they don't already know?, 21(7), 849-

870. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229658254_Estimating_the_effects_of

_misleading_information_on_witness_accuracy_Can_experts_tell_jurors_something_

they_don't_already_know

Morgan, C. A., Hazlettb, G., Doranc, A., Garrett, S., Hoyte, G., Thomas, P., & Southwick, S.

(2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to

highly intense stress. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 265–279.

Schacter, D. L. (2001). The seven sins of memory. Houghton-Mifflin: Boston

Sherif M. (1936). The Psychology of Social Norms. Harper & Brothers: New York.

11302215 13



Pickel, K. L., Ross, S. J., & Truelove, R. S. (2006). Do weapons automatically capture

attention? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 871–893.

Porter, S. & Yuille, J. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to

deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 443-458.

10.1007/BF01498980.

Possley, M. (2021). Curtis flowers - National registry of exonerations. University of

Michigan Law School.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5808

Vitriol, J. (2008). The reality of forensic psychology. Association for Psychological Science -

APS. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-reality-of-forensic-

psychology

Ward, J. T. (2013, September). What is forensic psychology? Psychology Student Network.

https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psn/2013/09/forensic-psychology

Wise, R. A., Sartori, G., Magnussen, S., & Safer, M. A. (2014). An Examination of the

Causes and Solutions to Eyewitness Error. Frontiers in

Psychiatry, 5(102), https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00102

11302215 14