Police Lineups: Making Eyewitness Identification More Reliable
by Beth Schuster
About the Author
Ms. Schuster is the managing editor of the NIJ Journal.
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, tell a different story: Semen
taken from the victims clothingwhich could have come
only from the perpetratordid not come from Miller. In
fact, when a DNA profile was created from the semen and entered
into the Federal Bureau of Investigations convicted offender
database, another man was implicated in the crime.
On April 23, 2007, Miller became the 200th person in the United
States to be exonerated through DNA evidence.[1]
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 Millers 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 identifiying 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
Nations 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?
Typically, the law enforcement official or lineup
administrator knows who the suspect is.[6]
Experts suggest that lineup administrators
mightwhether purposefully or inadvertentlygive
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 witnesss 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 perpetrators face, and thus affect an
eyewitnesss ability to identify the holder of the
weapon.[12]
Simultaneous vs. Sequential
Recent DNA exonerations have ignited heated debate among
law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys,
and researchers over the best way to obtain reliable eyewitness
evidence using police lineups.
The most common lineup procedure in use by law enforcement
is the simultaneous lineup.[13]
Researchers like Gary Wells, Ph.D.,
from Iowa State University, claim, however, that during
simultaneous lineups, witnesses use relative judgment,
meaning that they compare lineup photographs or members
to each other, rather than to their memory of the offender.
This is a problem when the perpetrator is not present in
the lineup because often the witness will choose the lineup
member who most closely resembles the perpetrator.[14]
During sequential lineups, on the other hand, witnesses must
make a decision about each photograph or member before moving
on to the next, prompting them to use absolute judgment.
In other words, witnesses compare each photograph or person
only to their memory of what the offender looked like.[15]
As the body of research into simultaneous versus sequential
methods continued to grow, some researchers working in the
lab discovered that the double-blind sequential methodin
which the administrator does not know the identity of the
suspectproduced fewer false identifications than the
traditional simultaneous method.[16]
In 2003, the Illinois legislature
put this research to the test. Lawmakers charged the Illinois
State Police with conducting a yearlong examination of the
double-blind sequential versus the simultaneous (commonly
used) eyewitness identification procedure to determine which
produced fewer false identifications.
The results, published in March 2006, surprised many. Although
the double-blind sequential lineup had produced more reliable
outcomes in the laboratory, this was not the case in the field.
Data collected from approximately 700 photo arrays and live
lineups from urban, suburban, and semi-rural Illinois police
departments revealed that the double-blind sequential procedure
resulted in an overall higher rate of false identifications
and a lower rate of suspect picks than the simultaneous
lineup.[17]
The stunning implications of the Illinois Pilot Program have
since been marred, however, by questions about the methodology
used. Wells, for instance, has noted that the study used
double-blind procedures in the sequential lineups but not
in the simultaneous lineups. This, he argues, left open
the potential for lineup administrators to influence
witnesses during the simultaneous lineups.[18]
In July, a panel of social scientists
expressed similar concerns about the field tests design
(see sidebar, Panel Calls Design of
Illinois Study Flawed).
Also in 2003, around the same time as the Illinois Pilot
Program, officials at the Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Attorneys Office became convinced by the growing body of
scientific laboratory evidence that the double-blind
sequential procedure was essential to reduce the risk of
misidentification.[19]
They instituted a new photographic double-blind sequential
lineup protocol in several county police departments. Over
a 12-month period, the project involved 280 lineups with
206 eyewitnesses. An NIJ-funded analysis of the project
found that although these field tests produced suspect
identification rates similar to those in other jurisdictions
that used traditional simultaneous lineups, witnesses in
Hennepin County chose fillers at a lower rate. The Hennepin
County data also revealed that additional viewings (or laps)
of the sequential lineup reduced eyewitness accuracy.[20]
Will Double-Blind Sequential Lineups Work in the Field?
Implementation is a crucial factor when examining the
reliability of the sequential lineup model versus the
simultaneous model. If continued field research validates
the effectiveness of the double-blind sequential model,
will police departmentsmost of which currently use
simultaneous lineups in which the administrator knows
which person is the suspectbe able to smoothly and
effectively implement this new procedure?
Departments involved in the Illinois study experienced
challenges when implementing the double-blind sequential
model. Although the model was relatively easy for them to
use with photo arrays, it was more difficult in live lineups,
particularly in cases with multiple perpetrators. In these
cases, officers often had to place more than one suspect
in a lineup because they lacked enough fillers for separate
lineups. Conducting sequential lineups with more than one
suspect was determined to be difficult and confusing, and
therefore the use of sequential lineups in multiple-perpetrator
cases was discontinued.
Finding administrators blind to the suspects identity was
also challenging, particularly during photo lineups that
took place outside the police station, such as in the
witnesses homes or places of work. This created delays
in investigations and inconveniences to witnesses.
After the Illinois Pilot Program had ended, the majority
of officers who had participated said they did not think
that the sequential lineup was superior; instead, they
said that witnesses who can identify the offender can do
so under either procedure. Officers also expressed concerns
that using a blind administrator disrupts the relationship
that an investigator tries to build with a witness.[21]
When Hennepin County tested the double-blind sequential model,
police officers initially expressed similar concerns about
using blind administrators. To deal with shortages of blind
administrators, the Hennepin County investigators turned
to other department staff, such as patrol officers, captains,
and sergeants, to serve as blind administrators. Overall,
the double-blind sequential procedure involved minimal cost
to implement, and officialsboth chiefs and
investigatorsfound it easier to do so than originally
anticipated.[22]
Continuing the Discussion
The current state of research on simultaneous versus sequential
lineupsincluding the limited amount of field testing
and the dispute over test designs and methodologyhas
generated more questions than answers. The results of the
Illinois and Hennepin County studies highlight the need for
more research on what works in police lineups and how police
departments can easily and effectively implement them.
To continue the important discussion of eyewitness evidence
and, particularly, to help identify areas for further
research, NIJ and the Government Innovators Network at
Harvard Universitys John F. Kennedy School of Government
recently sponsored a discussiona Web chatamong
experts. (Hear the Web chat at
www.innovations.harvard.edu/xchat.html Exit Notice.)
At the present time, [when comparing simultaneous and
sequential lineup presentations,] there is no definitive
sense that one form of lineup presentation is superior to
the other, Roy S. Malpass, Ph.D., professor of psychology
at the University of Texas at El Paso, said during the
Web chat.
Malpass noted that certain practices typically used in
sequential lineupssuch as asking witnesses to make a
separate decision on each photograph or individualhave
not been examined in simultaneous lineups. Thus, it is unclear
whether differences in the effectiveness of the two lineup
models are due to method of presentation (simultaneous or
sequential) or the presence of these other variables.
Nancy Steblay, also a panelist on the Web chat, noted that,
as with many other criminal justice procedures and protocols,
there are two sources of information on eyewitness
identification: the laboratory and the field. According
to James Doyle, director of the Center for Modern Forensic
Practice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York
City and the third panelist on the Web chat, both field
research and lab research have limitations. Lab studies
are limited by a lack of real-world, operational challenges.
Field studies are limited by uncertainty about who is
really the perpetrator.
According to Steblay, the field has gone past the lab and
made decisions about certain elements of eyewitness
identification, adapting recommended lab-based protocol
to the logistics of street practice and to concerns about
later courtroom challenges. It is now time for labs to
follow up and see if these field decisions make a difference
in eyewitness accuracy, she said.
Malpass added that because U.S. academic researchers work
outside of law enforcement, law enforcement investigators,
who are on the front lines, are not as familiar as they
might be with research results and researchers are generally
not as familiar as they might be with in-the-field police
practices.
This is the time for academics and law enforcement to come
together, have a dialogue, use each others resources, and
move on with a program of research, he said.
Committed to fostering collaboration between researchers
and practitioners, NIJ recently funded the Urban Institute
to test the reliability of using simultaneous versus
sequential and blind versus nonblind lineups in the field.
This important research will be guided by an NIJ-sponsored
study group of law enforcement officials, defense attorneys,
prosecutors, victim/witness advocates, and other stakeholders
from across the Nation.
During the recent NIJ-Harvard Web chat, Doyle offered guidance
as the criminal justice community continues to grapple with
the issue of eyewitness identification. There are people
on the one hand who would like to strangle this double-blind
sequential thing and end it right here and now, and there
are other people who would like to legislate it down peoples
throats, he said. We have to try to avoid the two extremes.
He added, What we have to do is recognize that we are dealing
with a very unusual, complex kind of trace evidence
here . . . . Its difficult to recover, easy to contaminate,
and very hard to handle.
All that police want from eyewitness identification is a
true and accurate eyewitness identification, said Philip
J. Cline, superintendent of the Chicago Police Department,
during the Web chat. We can do betterand we welcome
collaboration and guidance from researchers and lawyers,
whichever side of the table they sit on.
NCJ 219604
Sidebars
PRACTICE GUIDE, TRAINERS MANUAL ON EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION
Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement,
a 1999 report published by the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ), offers recommendations for the collection and
preservation of eyewitness evidence.
These recommendations were developed by a technical working
group of law enforcement investigators, prosecutors, defense
lawyers, and psychology researchers convened by NIJ to explore
ways to improve the accuracy, reliability, and availability
of information obtained from eyewitnesses. The recommendations
included:
- Composing lineups in a way to ensure that the suspect
does not stand out unduly.
- Explaining to the witness before the lineup begins that
the person who committed the crime may or may not be
in the lineup.
- Preserving the outcome of the lineup by documenting any
identification or nonidentification by the witness.
Four years later, NIJ published Eyewitness Evidence: A
Trainers Manual for Law Enforcement to assist law
enforcement trainers. This 2003 report can be found on
NIJs Web site:
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.
In fall 2007, NIJ plans to convene another advisory panel
of researchers and practitioners to help establish protocols
for upcoming field experiments on police lineups (see main
article).
PANEL CALLS DESIGN OF ILLINOIS STUDY FLAWED
A panel of social scientists recently said that the design
of the Illinois Pilot Programwhich compared double-blind
sequential lineup procedures to traditional nonblind
simultaneous procedureshas devastating consequences
for assessing the real-world implications.
Writing in the July 2007 issue of Law and Human Behavior,
the panel said that the design of the Illinois field study
guaranteed that most outcomes would be difficult or
impossible to interpret.
The panel was convened by the Center for Modern Forensic
Practice of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and
included Daniel Schacter of Harvard University and Nobel
Laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University. Also on
the panel were Robyn Dawes of Carnegie Mellon University;
Henry L. Roddy Roediger and Larry L. Jacoby of Washington
University in St. Louis; Richard Lempert of the University
of Michigan Law School; and Robert Rosenthal of the University
of California, Riverside.
The only way to sort this out [that is, which lineup
methods produce the most reliable results] is by conducting
further studies, the panelists said. (See main article for
information on NIJs recent funding of the Urban Institute
to test simultaneous and sequential, blind and nonblind
police lineups in the field.)
The design of these studies, however, will be crucial,
they added. A well-designed field study that avoids the
flaw built into the Illinois effort can be an important
first step toward learning what we need to know about the
best practices in identification procedures.
To read the full article, see
www.jjay.cuny.edu/extra/policyforum.pdf Exit Notice.
Return to text
Notes
NIJ does not exercise control over external Web sites. Read our Exit Notice.
[1] |
Willing, R.,
DNA Should Clear Man Who Served 25 Years,
USA Today, available at
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-22-dna-exoneration-inside_N.htm;
and Ferrero, E., In 200th DNA Exoneration
Nationwide, Jerry Miller in Chicago Is Proven
Innocent 25 Years After Wrongful Conviction,
The Innocence Project, April 23, 2007, available at
www.innocenceproject.org/Content/530.php. |
[2] |
Meetings/Events
of the AJS Institute of Forensic Science and Public
Policy, American Judicature Society, available at
www.ajs.org/wc/wc_meetings.asp.
See also: Fears, D., Exonerations Change How Justice
System Builds a Prosecution, Washington Post,
May 3, 2007, available at
www.washingtonpost.com;
Conway, C., The DNA 200, New York Times,
May 20, 2007, available at
www.nytimes.com;
Duke, S.B., Eyewitness Testimony Doesnt Make It
TrueA Commentary by Stephen B. Duke, Yale
Law School, June 12, 2006, available at
www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm;
and Ferrero, In 200th DNA Exoneration Nationwide,
Jerry Miller in Chicago Is Proven Innocent 25 Years
After Wrongful Conviction. |
[3] |
See
www.dna.gov/uses/postconviction
for more information on using DNA evidence to
exonerate the innocent. |
[4] |
Wells, G.L., A.
Memon, and S.D. Penrod, Eyewitness Evidence:
Improving Its Probative Value, Psychological
Science in the Public Interest 7 (2) (November
2006): 45–75. |
[5] |
Wells, G.L., and
E. Olson, Eyewitness Testimony, Annual Review
of Psychology 54 (2003): 277–295. |
[6] |
Wells, Memon, and
Penrod, Eyewitness Evidence: Improving Its
Probative Value, 63. |
[7] |
Gary L. Wells
comments on the Mecklenburg Report (see note 8),
available at
www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/Illinois_Project_Wells_comments.pdf
(accessed June 19, 2007). |
[8] |
Mecklenburg, S.H.,
Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois:
The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind
Identification Procedures, submitted March 17,
2006, available at
www.chicagopolice.org/IL%20Pilot%20on%20Eyewitness%20ID.pdf. |
[9] |
Steblay, N.M.,
Social Influence in Eyewitness Recall: A
Meta-Analytic Review of Lineup Instruction Effects,
Law and Human Behavior 21 (1997): 283–297. |
[10] |
Wells, G.L., M.
Small, S. Penrod, R. Malpass, S.M. Fulero, and C.A.E.
Brimacombe, Eyewitness Identification Procedures:
Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads, Law
and Human Behavior 22 (6) (1998). |
[11] |
Wells and Olson,
Eyewitness Testimony, 280. |
[12] |
Ibid., 282. |
[13] |
Ibid., 279. |
[14] |
Wells, G.L., and
E. Seelau, Eyewitness Identification: Psychological
Research and Legal Policy on Lineups, Psychology,
Public Policy and Law 1 (1995): 765–791. |
[15] |
Mecklenburg,
Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois:
The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind
Identification Procedures, 5. |
[16] |
Ibid., 4. |
[17] |
Ibid., iv. |
[18] |
Gary L. Wells
comments on the Mecklenburg Report,
www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/Illinois_Project_Wells_comments.pdf. |
[19] |
Steblay, N.,
Observations on the Illinois Lineup Data,
May 3, 2006, available at
http://web.augsburg.edu/~steblay/ObservationsOnTheIllinoisData.pdf
(accessed June 19, 2007). |
[20] |
Klobuchar, A.,
N. Steblay, and H.L. Caligiuri, Improving Eyewitness
Identifications: Hennepin Countys Blind Sequential
Lineup Pilot Project, Cardozo Public Law, Policy,
and Ethics Journal (2006). |
[21] |
Mecklenburg,
Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois:
The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind
Identification Procedures, 50–61. |
[22] |
Klobuchar, Steblay,
and Caligiuri, Improving Eyewitness Identifications:
Hennepin Countys Blind Sequential Lineup Pilot Project. |