Using Science to Reduce Mistaken Eyewitness Identifications in Police Lineups by Maureen Mcgough

To Err Is Human: Using Science to Reduce Mistaken Eyewitness Identifications in Police Lineups by Maureen McGough Researchers take police lineup studies from the laboratory to the field. In 1984, a Cook County, Ill., jury found 27-year-old Ronnie Bullock guilty of raping a 9-year-old girl in Chicago’s south side. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison. Crucial to the prosecution’s case was the victim’s identification of Bullock in a police lineup. A second rape victim — a 12-year-old girl — also viewed a police lineup and identified Bullock as her attacker.1 Maintaining his innocence, Bullock sought relief from the courts. His conviction was upheld on appeal in 1987, and two state postconviction petitions were unsuccessful. Bullock’s federal habeas petition was denied in 1991.2 In June of 1993, he was granted a motion to have impounded evidence released for DNA testing. Tests revealed that Bullock was not the source of the semen found on the victim’s clothing, and a judge dismissed the charges against him in 1994.3 Bullock spent 10 and a half years in prison for a crime he did not commit.4 30 NIJ JOURNAL / ISSUE NO. 270 n JUNE 2012 The “Greensboro ationwide, mistaken eyewit- identification, but they cannot be ness identifications have Protocols” emphasized controlled in actual criminal cases.9 N played a role in 75 percent of the importance of true convictions later overturned because Several renowned eyewitness of DNA evidence,5 and criminal researchers have focused studies justice practitioners and researchers random assignment and on variables that the criminal justice have a pervasive interest in finding the consistent use system could control, such as who ways to improve the methods used administers the lineup, how the for eyewitness identifications. A of double-blind lineups lineup is administered, lineup com- good deal of research has focused positions and instructions given to on the police lineup, in which victims for conducting a witnesses.10 and witnesses attempt to distinguish a suspect from other individuals pre- scientifically sound By focusing on these controllable sented (known as “fillers”). variables, researchers have produced field experiment. findings from laboratory experiments A recent study from the American that shape investigative practices and Judicature Society (AJS) is adding to procedures.11 These science-based the body of research by investigating practices include: which lineup method results in fewer The initial report on the AJS study 6 mistaken identifications: indicates that sequential lineups sig- n Using fillers in lineups that match nificantly reduce the number of filler the verbal description of the n Sequential, in which the witness identifications without significantly perpetrator views lineup members one at a reducing the number of accurate n Informing the witness that the per- time and makes a decision on each positive identifications. Thus, the petrator may or may not be present individual member, or AJS findings support results from past laboratory experiments. in the lineup n Simultaneous, in which the n Using a double-blind administration witness views the entire lineup in which the lineup administrator at once Research From Laboratories to the Field does not know who the suspect is Past research using controlled and therefore is unable to transmit laboratory experiments consistently Given the vital role of eyewitness inadvertent cues or feedback to showed that sequential methods testimony in the administration the identifying witness12 yielded fewer mistaken identifica- of justice and the inherent risks Laboratory tests also show that tions. But in 2006, a field study in therein, extensive research has been sequential lineups offer a better ratio Illinois called into question the supe- dedicated to developing lineups that of accurate to mistaken identifica- riority of the sequential method (and minimize identification of fillers with- tions than simultaneous lineups. with it, the use of controlled labora- out significantly reducing accurate, Sequential lineups require witnesses tory experiments as approximations positive identifications. to compare each individual they see for actual eyewitnesses to crimes). to their recollection of the suspect.13 However, many of the variables that This increases accuracy and reduces Scientists, however, identified flaws may affect the accuracy of eyewit- the risk that witnesses will make a in the Illinois study’s design and ness identification are out of the judgment based on a relative com- implementation. As a result, some control of the criminal justice sys- parison of who among the group experts have deemed the results tem.8 These include lighting of the looks most like the perpetrator rela- “difficult or impossible to interpret.”7 crime scene; length of time a wit- tive to the other lineup members. In ness was exposed to the perpetrator; fact, when a double-blind lineup was To produce more rigorous data using severity of the crime; and character- administered using the sequential field techniques rather than labora- istics of the witness and perpetrator, technique in laboratory testing, iden- tory techniques, the AJS research such as race, age and sex. These tifications were twice as reliable as team developed an improved variables are helpful in estimating those from traditional lineups.14 research design for its study. the likely accuracy of eyewitness To Err Is Human: Using Science to Reduce Mistaken Eyewitness Identifications in Police Lineups | 31 NIJ JOURNAL / ISSUE NO. 270 n JUNE 2012 The Supreme Court and Eyewitness Testimony — Perry v. New Hampshire yewitness testimony plays a identifications made under sugges- argument would open the door to Ecrucial role in the American tive conditions require preliminary judicial preview of most — if not criminal justice system. However, judicial inquiry — when happen- all — eyewitness identifications. like any process relying on the stance renders the identification Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the integrity of human memory, eye- setting suggestive. lone dissenter. Although the major- witness testimony is imperfect. In Perry, a New Hampshire police ity held that the crucial, common The American Judicature Society officer responded to a call that an factor in relevant Court precedent study found that even when African American man was attempt- was that police arranged a sugges- lineups were conducted using ing to break into cars in a nearby lot. tive interview, Justice Sotomayor procedures shown to lead to fewer When the officer asked an eyewit- countered that the suggestive nature mistaken identifications, witnesses ness to describe the man, she of the interview itself — not the cir- identified a “filler” 12.2 percent of pointed to Perry — the only African cumstances that led the suggestive the time. The courts must there- American man standing in the lot nature — was the key. She believed fore strike a balance between next to a police officer — and identi- that the majority opinion did not ade- allowing the introduction of eyewit- fied him as the man in question. quately consider empirical evidence ness testimony that can be crucial Perry’s arrest followed. The out-of- showing mistaken identifications as to the prosecution’s case and court identification was introduced the single greatest cause of wrong- protecting defendants from unrea- at trial and Perry was found guilty ful convictions in this country. She sonably unreliable evidence. of theft. also highlighted studies showing that The Supreme Court has long held eyewitness recollections are highly In its October 2011 opinion, the that it is up to jurors to evaluate susceptible to distortion and that Court held that the introduction eyewitness testimony and make jurors overestimate the accuracy of this out-of-court identification their own judgments as to its of eyewitness identifications. did not violate the Due Process credibility. However, the Court has Clause. The Court said that the also held that the Constitution’s determination of the Due Process Clause requires credibility of the preliminary judicial inquiry into the testimony in reliability of eyewitness identifica- question should tion if law enforcement created be left to the jurors and unnecessarily suggestive circum- declined to put what it deemed new stances during the identification. legal limits on the use of question- In Perry v. New Hampshire, the able eyewitness testimony at trial. petitioner asked the Court to The Court also opined that Perry’s apply the same principle — that The 2006 Illinois Report double-blind lineup compared with double-blind, sequential lineups pro- Although laboratory results were the traditional (non-blind, simultane- duced a higher rate of identification 15 promising, proposed changes in ous) lineup. of innocent fillers and a lower rate of 16 investigative practices needed to identification of suspects. In other be field tested before they could The results were surprising. In words, this report contradicted what be used to support widespread 2006, the Illinois State Police laboratory experiments had shown procedural overhauls. In 2003, the released a report (often referred to for years, and it recommended Illinois state legislature charged the as The Mecklenberg Report after against instituting changes based 17 Illinois State Police with conduct- its author, Sheri Mecklenberg) solely on laboratory science. The ing a yearlong field test of the showing that, in two of the three report, which was widely publicized, effectiveness of the sequential,

Load more