Eyewitnesses and the Police Lineup
According to an article in the New York Times, approximately 77,000 people each year are tried for a criminal offense because an eyewitness picked them out of a police lineup.
Lineups are famously flawed. The Times article says that out of the 200 inmates exonerated by DNA evidence in the last few years, 75% of the false convictions resulted from faulty eyewitness identifications.
Part of the problem occurs at the time of the offense. Environmental conditions like poor lighting and human limitations like the inability of the mind to remember faces contribute to misidentifications. Other problems occur at the time of the identification. During the lineup, the police may subtly suggest to the eyewitness whom to choose.
Because of the problems with lineups, several reforms have been suggested. However, the Times article argues that the most significant reform has led to more misidentifications. Several states have adopted the “sequential” lineup procedure in which the eyewitness is shown a person one at a time as opposed to the traditional lineup where all the people are viewed at once. The sequential lineup resulted in more misidentifications and also made witnesses less likely to pick anyone.
The article suggests other often argued reforms to improve the accuracy of the lineup. They include telling witnesses that they do not have to pick anyone; making sure that the non-suspects in the lineup resemble the suspect; and videotaping the procedure so that judges and juries can see how the process was conducted.
A suspect has a right to have a lawyer present during a lineup only after judicial proceedings have begun. So, a suspect who has not been charged cannot ask for a lawyer to be present during a lineup. However, if the police conducted the lineup in a extremely suggestive way, the identification can be tossed on Due Process grounds.
Due Process is also a way to challenge the use of photo lineups—that is, when the police show an eyewitness an array of photographs and ask them to choose a suspect.
Lineups are famously flawed. The Times article says that out of the 200 inmates exonerated by DNA evidence in the last few years, 75% of the false convictions resulted from faulty eyewitness identifications.
Part of the problem occurs at the time of the offense. Environmental conditions like poor lighting and human limitations like the inability of the mind to remember faces contribute to misidentifications. Other problems occur at the time of the identification. During the lineup, the police may subtly suggest to the eyewitness whom to choose.
Because of the problems with lineups, several reforms have been suggested. However, the Times article argues that the most significant reform has led to more misidentifications. Several states have adopted the “sequential” lineup procedure in which the eyewitness is shown a person one at a time as opposed to the traditional lineup where all the people are viewed at once. The sequential lineup resulted in more misidentifications and also made witnesses less likely to pick anyone.
The article suggests other often argued reforms to improve the accuracy of the lineup. They include telling witnesses that they do not have to pick anyone; making sure that the non-suspects in the lineup resemble the suspect; and videotaping the procedure so that judges and juries can see how the process was conducted.
A suspect has a right to have a lawyer present during a lineup only after judicial proceedings have begun. So, a suspect who has not been charged cannot ask for a lawyer to be present during a lineup. However, if the police conducted the lineup in a extremely suggestive way, the identification can be tossed on Due Process grounds.
Due Process is also a way to challenge the use of photo lineups—that is, when the police show an eyewitness an array of photographs and ask them to choose a suspect.
posted by Fred Dahr at
8:02 AM
<< Home