Difference between revisions of "Eyewitness Misidentification"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Currently no government endorsed policy to reform eyewitness misidentification. However, lawyers, judges, and law enforcement officials are not unaware of the systemic problems with eyewitness misidentification. In 1999, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) published a report entitled "Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement." (Thompson 2009, 3) The report provides a guide for standardizing eyewitness identification to minimize errors. The DOJ supports a methodical approach and provides guidance at every step of investigation from the initial witness interview to instructing the witness during lineups. | Currently no government endorsed policy to reform eyewitness misidentification. However, lawyers, judges, and law enforcement officials are not unaware of the systemic problems with eyewitness misidentification. In 1999, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) published a report entitled "Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement." (Thompson 2009, 3) The report provides a guide for standardizing eyewitness identification to minimize errors. The DOJ supports a methodical approach and provides guidance at every step of investigation from the initial witness interview to instructing the witness during lineups. | ||
| − | Some states have undertaken reforms of their own volition, though the process is limited to future identifications only. For example, reform programs have begun in New Jersey, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. In addition, a few cities have begun implementing reform: Boston, MA; Minneapolis, MN; and Virginia Beach, VA. (Wells, Nieman Website) | + | Some states have undertaken reforms of their own volition, though the process is limited to future identifications only. For example, reform programs have begun in New Jersey, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. In addition, a few cities have begun implementing reform: Boston, MA; Minneapolis, MN; and Virginia Beach, VA. ('''Bold text'''Wells, Nieman Website) |
| − | == Solutions | + | == Solutions == |
| − | + | Reform measures generally promote increased diligence by Law Enforcement Officials: | |
| − | * Instructing the witness: | + | * '''Instructing the witness:''' important to emphasize that the suspect may not be in the lineup. Official should discourage the witness from guessing if unsure. (Wells, Nieman Website) |
| − | * Number of | + | * '''Number and Selection of Fillers:''' should use five or more fillers who fit the basic description of the suspect to ensure that one person does not obviously stand out as different(Wells, Nieman Website) |
| − | * Sequential | + | * '''Sequential v. Simultaneous Display:''' When exhibiting a photographical lineup, experts suggest displaying the pictures sequentially, rather than simultaneously in order to combat the problem of relative judgment, in which the witness chooses the person most resembling the criminal from a simultaneous display. Currently, only the states of New Jersey and North Carolina mandate the sequential display. (Thompson 2009, 13) |
* Blind lineup: the lineup is conducted by another law enforcement official other than the case detective, who cannot distinguish between the lineup fillers and the person of interest and therefore cannot give the eyewitness subtle hints or indications about the identity of the suspect. (Fisher 2007, 5) | * Blind lineup: the lineup is conducted by another law enforcement official other than the case detective, who cannot distinguish between the lineup fillers and the person of interest and therefore cannot give the eyewitness subtle hints or indications about the identity of the suspect. (Fisher 2007, 5) | ||
