Eyewitness identification is a critical tool for apprehending and prosecuting criminals. Nonetheless, groundbreaking research on eyewitness memory as well as increasing attention to the problems in the cases of wrongfully convicted individuals, has brought the fallibility of eyewitness memory to the fore.
Eyewitness misidentification is widely recognized as the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States, accounting for more wrongful convictions than all other causes combined.
Since 1989, DNA evidence has been used to exonerate nearly 200 individuals who were wrongfully convicted. Of those, approximately 75 percent were convicted on evidence that included inaccurate and faulty eyewitness identifications. In some cases, these innocent individuals were misidentified by more than one eyewitness.
Starting in the late nineties, leading researchers, together with legal and law enforcement practitioners, released comprehensive evaluations of police eyewitness identification procedures (including lineups, photo arrays, etc.), as well as guidelines and best practices for law enforcement, and in October 1999, the Department of Justice released a comprehensive guide for law enforcement on procedures for obtaining more accurate eyewitness evidence.
Some of the best practices include:
-
The careful documentation of the identification, which decreases possible manipulation of witness certainty. Often, a witness’s initial confidence in an identification is rather low and provisional, but reinforcing statements and behaviors from authorities can exaggerate that certainty -- sometimes greatly -- by the time the witness testifies at trial. Documenting a witness’s "certainty statement" prior to any such feedback helps the jury to assess the eyewitness evidence appropriately.
- The use of cautionary instructions. Prior to presenting the lineup members, the eyewitness should be instructed that the perpetrator may or may not be included in the lineup. Cautionary instructions remove some of the pressure on the eyewitness to choose a suspect when the culprit may not be in the lineup.
-
The effective use of fillers. Fillers, or non-suspect individuals presented to an eyewitness as part of a lineup, if chosen correctly, allow authorities to judge the reliability of an eyewitness. The effective use of fillers is critical to ensuring that an innocent individual is not identified simply because of the composition of the lineup.
-
The use of an administrator who does not know which person is the suspect. Also called "double blind," this procedure prevents well-intentioned officials from giving inadvertent clues to the witness as to which person in the lineup is the police suspect.
-
The presentation of the lineup members "sequentially" (one at a time) rather than all at once. This procedure enhances accuracy by reducing the tendency for "comparison shopping" in favor of a more direct assessment of whether the lineup members match the witness’s memory of the perpetrator. It also takes pressure off the witness to choose a suspect even though the attacker might not be in the lineup.
Components of these guidelines are already being used by many law enforcement officers in their current practice. The changes recommended here are pragmatic strategies with a track record of success. They entail minimal effort and resources expended for significant increases in quality of evidence. Increasingly, comparisons between the relatively low costs of implementing these reforms and the substantial benefits are leading more jurisdictions to modernize eyewitness procedures.
The Justice Project has published Eyewitness Identification: A Policy Review (pdf), which outlines recommendations for procedural improvements, the latest scientific research, pertinent case studies and model state policies to inform action by policymakers, local law enforcement agencies, and others wishing to address the systemic causes of wrongful conviction. An issue overview (pdf) is also available.
Hardcopies of the policy review are available on request. If you are working directly on this issue in your state, or you would like additional information, please contact info@thejusticeproject.org. |
Related Studies:
The following materials are essential reading for individuals interested in improving eyewitness identification procedures:
Wisconsin Model Policy and Procedures for Eyewitness Identification
Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads (pdf)
Related Cases:
Anthony Porter
In September 1998, after spending 16 years on Illinois' death row for a crime he did not commit, Anthony Porter had exhausted all of his appeals and came within two days of being executed. Wrongfully imprisoned for the shooting deaths of two teenagers, Porter was convicted on the basis of the eyewitness identification testimony of William Taylor. Taylor was first questioned by police at the scene of the shootings and said he did not see the perpetrator. In later questioning at the station, he claimed he saw Porter run by after shots were fired. After 17 more hours of questioning, Taylor said he saw Porter shoot the two victims. In December 1998, however, Taylor recanted his testimony, and the real perpetrator confessed a month later. In February 1999, Porter was released, and the murder charges were officially dropped against him the next month.
Kirk Bloodsworth
In June of 1993, Kirk Bloodsworth's case became the first capital conviction in the United States to be overturned as a result of DNA testing. Misidentified by five different eyewitnesses for the rape and murder of young Dawn Hamilton, Bloodsworth, now a Program Officer for The Justice Project, served almost nine years in prison, including two on death row, for a crime he did not commit. On September 5, 2003, Bloodsworth heard the news he had been waiting to hear for 20 years: the state of Maryland finally charged the true perpetrator with the crime after matching DNA evidence with information from state and federal databases.
