NCJ Number
224611
Journal
THE POLICE CHIEF Volume: 75 Issue: 10 Dated: October 2008 Pages: 68-70,72,74,76-78,81
Date Published
October 2008
Length
9 pages
Annotation
After discussing two frequently recommended yet controversial changes to eyewitness identification procedures--the sequential display of photos and the use of “blind” administrators--this article recommends improvements to eyewitness identification practices that every police chief can and should immediately adopt.
Abstract
The sequential, double-blind eyewitness identification procedure involves two components. First, the sequential component requires that photographs be displayed one at a time rather than side by side, with the witness being required to make a decision on each photo before viewing the next one. The blind-administrator component requires that the lineup be conducted by an individual who does not know the suspect’s identity and therefore cannot influence the witness. This procedure is sometimes referred to as double-blind, because the witness viewing the photos also does not know which photo will be the suspect. The reliability of these eyewitness identification procedures has been questioned due to subsequent DNA exonerations of suspects identified by eyewitnesses using these procedures. This led the U.S. Department of Justice to establish a study group to review and recommend eyewitness identification procedures. The group was divided over the sequential, double-blind procedures, concluding that field studies should be conducted before any sequential, double-blind procedures could be deemed superior. The first and only such study was undertaken in 2004, i.e., the Illinois Study on Eyewitness Identification. The Illinois data show that the sequential, double-blind lineups recorded a 9.2-percent rate of known false identifications, compared with the known false identification rate of 2.8 percent for traditional procedures. The method also resulted in a 15-percent reduction in suspect identifications. This article recommends that DNA exonerations provide guidance for necessary improvements in training, protocols, and practices in eyewitness identification, independent of ongoing efforts to provide an ultimate resolution of the sequential, double-blind procedures. Eight recommendations are offered. 29 notes