by Beth Schuster
About the Author: Beth Schuster is the managing editor of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Journal.
On April 23, 2007, Jerry Miller became the 200th person in the United States to be exonerated through DNA evidence.
In 1981, 22-year-old Jerry Miller was arrested and charged with robbing, kidnapping, and raping a woman. Two witnesses identified Miller, in a police lineup, as the perpetrator. The victim provided a more tentative identification at trial. Miller was convicted, served 24 years in prison, and was released on parole as a registered sex offender, requiring him to wear an electronic monitoring device at all times.
Recent DNA tests, however, told a different story: Semen taken from the victim’s clothing—which could have only come from the perpetrator—was not from Miller. In fact, when a DNA profile was created from the semen and entered into the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s convicted offender database, another man was implicated in the crime.
Eyewitnesses play a vital role in the administration of justice in this country. Their testimony can provide the key to identifying, charging, and convicting a suspect in a criminal case. Indeed, in some cases, eyewitness evidence may be the only evidence available.
Yet cases like Miller’s show that eyewitness evidence is not perfect. Even the most well-intentioned witnesses can identify the wrong person or fail to identify the perpetrator of a crime. According to the American Judicature Society, misidentification by eyewitnesses was the leading cause of wrongful conviction in more than 75 percent of the first 183 DNA exonerations in the United States.[2],[3]
These cases have caused criminal justice professionals to take a closer look at eyewitness evidence, specifically at the effectiveness of identifying suspects from photographic and live lineups. And recent studies on lineup structure and implementation have led to even more questions and disagreement in the field, highlighting the need for more research and dialogue about what works. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has initiated a multisite field experiment of eyewitness evidence to examine the effectiveness and accuracy of this crucial and powerful component of the Nation’s criminal justice system as it is used in police departments and courtrooms across the country.
Elements of a Lineup
At its most basic level, a police lineup involves placing a suspect among people not suspected of committing the crime (fillers) and asking the eyewitness if he or she can identify the perpetrator. This can be done using a live lineup of people or, as more commonly done in U.S. police departments, a lineup of photographs. Live lineups typically use five or six people (a suspect plus four or five fillers) and photo lineups six or more photographs.[4]
There are two common types of lineups: simultaneous and sequential. In a simultaneous lineup (used most often in police departments around the country),[5] the eyewitness views all the people or photos at the same time. In a sequential lineup, people or photographs are presented to the witness one at a time.
Live Police Lineups: How Do They Work?
Graphic: “Live Police Lineups: How Do They Work?” This graphic illustrates the differences in live police lineup presentation. In a simultaneous lineup, the witness views all lineup members at the same time. In a sequential lineup, the witness examines lineup members one at a time. In either model, the lineup administrator can be blind, meaning he or she does not know the identity of the suspect, or nonblind, meaning the administrator knows the identity of the suspect. Most U.S. police departments use photo lineups. The same concepts depicted in this graphic-simultaneous and sequential, blind and nonblind-apply in photo lineups.
Typically, the law enforcement official or lineup administrator knows who the suspect is.[6] Experts suggest that lineup administrators might—whether purposefully or inadvertently—give the witness verbal or nonverbal cues as to the identity of the suspect. For instance, if an eyewitness utters the number of a filler, the lineup administrator may say to the witness, “Take your time . . . . Make sure you look at all the photos.” Such a statement may effectively lead the witness away from the filler.[7] In a “double-blind” lineup, however, neither the administrator nor the witness knows the identity of the suspect, and so the administrator cannot influence the witness in any way.[8] (See graphic, “Live Police Lineups: How Do They Work?”)
Additional variables that can affect the outcome of police lineups include:
Prelineup instructions given to the witness. This includes explaining that the suspect may or may not be present in the lineup. Research on prelineup instructions by Nancy Steblay, Ph.D., professor of psychology at Augsburg College in Minneapolis, Minnesota, revealed that a “might or might not be present” instruction reduced mistaken identification rates in lineups where the suspect was absent.[9]
The physical characteristics of fillers. Fillers who do not resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator may cause a suspect to stand out.[10]
Similarities or differences between witness and suspect age, race, or ethnicity. Research suggests that when the offender is present in a lineup, young children and the elderly perform nearly as well as young adults in identifying the perpetrator. When the lineup does not contain the offender, however, young children and the elderly commit mistaken identifications at a rate higher than young adults. Research has also indicated that people are better able to recognize faces of their own race or ethnic group than faces of another race or ethnic group.[11]
Incident characteristics, such as the use of force or weapons.
The presence of a weapon during an incident can draw visual attention away from other things, such as the perpetrator’s face, and thus affect an eyewitness’s ability to identify the holder of the weapon.[12]
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.