Mistaken eyewitness identifications contributed to approximately 71% of the more than 360 wrongful convictions in the United States overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence. Inaccurate eyewitness identifications can derail investigations from the very beginning. Critical time is lost while police are distracted from the real perpetrator, focusing instead on building the case against an innocent person. Despite growing proof of the inaccuracy of traditional eyewitness ID procedures (and the availability of simple measures to reform them) traditional eyewitness identifications remain among the most commonly used evidence brought against criminal defendants.
The Problem with Standard Lineups The police officer administering the lineup typically knows who the suspect is. Research shows that administrators often provide unintentional cues to the eyewitness about which person to pick from the lineup.
Without instructions from the administrator, the eyewitness often assumes that the perpetrator of the crime is one of those presented in the lineup. This often leads to the selection of a person despite doubts.
The officer may choose non-suspect "fillers" that don't match the witness's description or don't resemble the suspect. This can cause the suspect to stand out to a witness because of the composition of the lineup. This suggestion can lead an eyewitness to identify a particular individual in a photo array or lineup.
The officer may not document a statement from a witness describing their level of confidence in an identification. A witness's confidence can be particularly susceptible to influence by information provided to the witness after the identification process. Research shows that information provided to a witness after an identification suggesting that the witness selected the right person can dramatically, yet artificially, increase the witness’s confidence in the identification. Therefore it's important to capture an eyewitness’s level of confidence at the point in time that an identification is made.
Potential Reforms 1. Use of a Blind Administrator: A “double-blind” lineup is one in which neither the administrator nor the eyewitness knows who the suspect is. This prevents the administrator of the lineup from providing inadvertent or intentional verbal or nonverbal cues to influence the eyewitness to pick the suspect.
2. Instructions: The instructions given to the eyewitness can deter the eyewitness from feeling compelled to make a selection and prevent the eyewitness from looking to the lineup administrator for feedback during the identification procedure. One of the recommended instructions includes that the suspect may or may not be present in the lineup.
3. Lineup Composition: Suspect photographs should be selected that do not bring unreasonable attention to him. Non-suspect photographs and/or fillers should be selected so that the suspect does not stand out from among the other fillers. Law enforcement should select fillers using a. approach that considers the fillers’ resemblance to the description provided by the eyewitness and their resemblance to the police suspect.
4. Confidence Statements: Immediately following the lineup procedure, the eyewitness should provide a statement, in their own words, that describes the level of confidence they have in the identification made.
5. Documentation: Ideally, the lineup procedure should be electronically recorded. If this is impracticable, an audio or written record should be made.
24 states have implemented these reforms (as promoted by the Innocence Project) either through legislation, court action, or voluntary compliance: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.