EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION

It is no secret that eyewitness identification has often proved to be unreliable. In the past few years, a sizable number of men who were serving years in prison for rape based on the identification by ‘their’ victims have been exonerated through DNA testing.

Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle reports that Brandon Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia's School of Law, conducted a study of 250 convicts cleared by DNA evidence. 190 of those cases resulted from the ‘misidentification of the suspect by eyewitnesses.’ Garrett says that ‘the memory is not only fallible but, more importantly, malleable.’ In 92 cases, eyewitnesses had expressed doubt at the time they first made the identifications, but testified in court that they were certain of their identification.

Garrett is convinced that the misidentifications occur because of the manner in which the police conducted photo IDs and line-up IDs. He makes the following recommendations to improve the ID process:

1. Have a written policy for conducting photo IDs and line-ups.

2. Conduct "double blind" line-ups in which the officer presenting the photo or live line-ups does not know who, if anyone, is suspected.

3. To keep witnesses from misinterpreting unintended (or intended) ‘cures’, the officer should tell the witness that he doesn't know who the suspect is.

4. Small departments can do double blind photo IDs by putting photos in individual folders, shuffling them, and not letting the officer see which ones the witness is viewing.

5. Document the level of certainty with which the witness identifies a suspect during the photo ID or the line-up.

Garrett maintains that "It's much more important how certain a witness is at first than at trial."

While Garrett’s recommendations will go a long way to improving eyewitness identification, it is important to note that the ID process will never be entirely foolproof! Thus, in order to prevent wrongful convictions, a criminal case should never be based solely on eyewitness identification. There should be other solid evidence against the defendant.