"A Test of the Simultaneous vs. Sequential Lineup Methods," is the AJS report being released today. It's available in Adobe .pdf format. Here's the summary:
Since 2008, the AJS Center for Forensic Science and Public Policy, in collaboration with the Innocence Project, the Police Foundation, and the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, have been engaged in an effort to examine eyewitness identification procedures in the field, namely the reliability of simultaneous versus sequential lineups administered under double-blind conditions using laptop computers.
The analysis of over 850 lineups collected across four sites: the Austin (TX) Police Department, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (NC) Police Department, the Tucson (AZ) Police Department, and the San Diego (CA) Police Department has been completed.
Today's New York Times reports, "Changes to Police Lineup Procedures Cut Eyewitness Mistakes, Study Says." It's written by John Schwartz.
The push for procedures to help overcome the weaknesses of eyewitness identifications gains support with a new study being released on Monday that sees significant advantages in techniques promoted by many experts and a growing number of police departments.
The new report, based on actual cases in the field, suggests that photographs presented one by one by a person not directly connected with a case significantly reduced identifications of fillers (people known not to be the suspect) from 18 percent in simultaneous lineups to 12 percent in sequential ones.
And while a 2006 study cited by opponents of the sequential technique suggested that witnesses make fewer selections over all in sequential lineups than in simultaneous ones, the new report showed that the sequential approach leads to just as many picks of suspects as do the simultaneous techniques if conducted as they commonly are in the field, with the witnesses getting an opportunity to view the images a second time if they request it.
A large number of researchers have found that having the images presented by someone with no knowledge of the case, in a “double-blind” lineup, can reduce subtle and even unintentional influences on witnesses that can lead to mistaken identifications. Further research has suggested that presenting the images one at a time, instead of all at once, alleviates what some call “comparison shopping” by witnesses and causes them to rely more on their memory than the comparison.
A number of states and law enforcement agencies have followed suit with changes that include a requirement of double-blind, sequential lineups. Many departments have declined to change, however, in part because much of the previous research was performed in the laboratory and not in real-life investigations. They also cited the highly publicized 2006 study and others that cast doubt on the efficacy of sequential lineups.
The new report was planned and carried out in the wake of the 2006 study, which the authors of the new report have argued was flawed. And its findings, based largely on cases in Austin, Tex., with cooperation from police departments in San Diego, Tucson and Charlotte, N.C., suggest that “the sequential procedure should catch fewer innocent suspects in its net.”
The new study shows that “we have the tools to reduce eyewitness error, to protect the innocent and help law enforcement apprehend the guilty,” said Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, a sponsor of the report along with the American Judicature Society and the Police Foundation.
“I think it’s wonderful,” said Rosemary Lehmberg, the district attorney for Travis County, which includes Austin. “It’s the first time I have seen a study that has the potential to convince folks that double-blind sequential can really help cut down on mistaken identity.”
Others are not convinced. Art Acevedo, Austin’s police chief, said his department was not ready to fully embrace sequential lineups and would allow officers to use both methods. The study is “a great starting point,” he said, “but we’re not at the finish line yet.”
And:
The fallibility of eyewitness identification is well known; 75 percent of the more than 250 convictions overturned based on DNA evidence involved mistaken identifications. A landmark decision last month by the New Jersey Supreme Court cited this “troubling lack of reliability” in setting new rules for addressing those weaknesses in New Jersey courtrooms.
While the court took a strong stand that lineups should be conducted by law enforcement agents with no interest in or knowledge of the case to avoid the potential for influencing witnesses, the justices were more guarded in their view of sequential lineups, writing that “there is insufficient authoritative evidence accepted by scientific experts for a court to make a finding in favor of either procedure.”
Gary L. Wells, a professor of psychology at Iowa State University and lead author of the new report, said in a statement, “Sequential presentation is not a silver bullet for the mistaken identification problem, but can lead to fewer innocent suspects being misidentified when the lineups are conducted double-blind.”
The AP report is, "Study aims to alter the way police conduct lineups," by Nedra Pickler. It's also available via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
A new study says those lineups you see on television crime dramas and often used in real-life police departments are going about it all wrong.
The study released Monday by the American Judicature Society is part of a growing body of research during the past 35 years that questions the reliability of eyewitness identifications under certain circumstances. That research has been taken more seriously in recent years with the evolution of DNA evidence clearing innocents of crimes they were convicted of committing, often based on eyewitness testimony.
The new study finds witnesses should not look at a group of people at once to pick a perpetrator. Instead, they should look at individuals one-by-one with a detective who doesn't know which is the real suspect - known as a double-blind lineup to avoid giving witnesses unintentional cues - preferably on a computer to ensure appropriate random procedures are used and to record the data.
The study found witnesses using the sequential method were less likely to pick the innocents brought in to fill out the lineup. The theory is that witnesses using the sequential lineup will compare each person to the perpetrator in their memory, instead of comparing them to one another side-by-side to see which most resembles the criminal.
And:
Wells estimates that between 20 and 25 percent of 16,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States are using the sequential and double-blind procedures. He said those reforms have been made in the last decade, with some key departments including Denver and Dallas coming on board just this year. "There's still a long ways to go," he said. He said he hoped this study would help push reforms forward.
Earlier coverage of changes in eyewitness id practices begins at the link; more on the August New Jersey Supreme Court ruling is also available. More on Gary Wells at his Iowa State University website.
Related posts are in the eyewitness identification index. There is an eyewitness identification webroll in the left-column.
Comments