Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit Defense Blog : Wrongful Conviction Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Andrew M. Hale Law Firm

According to an article in USA Today - they are reporting:

At least five states — Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina and West Virginia — and some major U.S. cities have either revamped or started changing the way law enforcement officials use photographic lineups to identify suspects. Since changing its policy in April, Dallas Police Lt. David Pughes says the department has conducted 1,400 lineups and believes "we're bringing a stronger piece of evidence to court."

"Challenges to lineups were first dismissed as misguided academic exercises, until (law enforcement officials) could see the concrete disasters resulting in exoneration," says Iowa State University psychology professor Gary Wells, an expert on eyewitness identification. Earlier this year, Dallas became the largest police department to stop presenting blocks of mug shots to witnesses. Now, suspects' photographs are presented one at a time by investigators who are not involved in the cases. The new sequential technique is designed to focus witnesses' memories more precisely on who they saw and not allow for potentially faulty comparisons.

But are sequential lineups really better? The National Institute of Justice is not convinced.  According to their research:

So far, research that compares simultaneous and sequential lineups and the use of "blind" administrators has not been conclusive. In a blind lineup, the person who is running the lineup does not know which person the police believe is the likely suspect.

According to an article published by the NIJ:

“At the present time, [when comparing simultaneous and sequential lineup presentations,] there is no definitive sense that one form of lineup presentation is superior to the other,” Roy S. Malpass, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of Texas at El Paso..

Malpass noted that certain practices typically used in sequential lineups—such as asking witnesses to make a separate decision on each photograph or individual—have not been examined in simultaneous lineups. Thus, it is unclear whether differences in the effectiveness of the two lineup models are due to method of presentation (simultaneous or sequential) or the presence of these other variables.

Jury is still out. But crimes still need to be solved. Best tool police have to do that is still eyewitnesses - whether a psychology professor likes it or not.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Click here to see the full 60 minutes 

CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl provided an in-depth analysis on the flaws of eyewitness identification. Stahl tells the compelling story of a rape victim named Jennifer Thompson. She picked Ronald Cotton out of a photo array and Cotton was arrested. After she picked him out of a lineup, Cotton was put on trial and convicted. While in prison, Cotton ran into a man named Bobby Poole and they looked a lot alike. In fact, the prisoners and guards would even mistakenly call each other by the other name. Eventually, Cotton was exonerated by DNA evidence, and it was shown that Poole committed the crime.

The story goes on analyze some issues involved with the identification. First, Stahl reports that it is often the case that the real perpetrator is not in the photo array.

"When you're sittin' in front of a photo lineup, you just assume one of these guys is the suspect. It's my job to find it," Thompson explained.
"Bobby Poole's photograph was not in the photo lineup," Thompson told Stahl. "He was not in the physical lineup."

"When the real perpetrator is not in the set, is none of them, witnesses have a very difficult time being able to recognize that," explained Gary Wells, a professor of psychology at Iowa State University.

Wells goes on to state that eyewitness ID's are very persuasive because the victim has no reason to lie. However he says, that if a person sees someone that did the crime, it would trigger recognition memory.

"Recognition memory is actually quite rapid. So we find in our studies, for example, that if somebody's taking longer than ten, 15 seconds, it's quite likely that they're doing something other than just using reliable recognition memory."

Wells continues and states that the biggest issue is the reinforcement factor after an identification. After the choice, the detective or officer familiar with the case and the victim often say good job or you made the right choice. This makes the victim feel they did it right, and become more positive about their choice.

[Wells] says the solution is to have someone independent administer the lineup, someone who doesn't even know who the suspect is. And certainly not the detective on the case.

Don't be quick to discount eyewitness identification - it has been the most prominent and valuable tool in putting away criminals. While there are cases such as this one, which are heart-wrenching, the police officer was doing his job by the book. Yet, in many cases such as this, the wrongly convicted still goes after the officer and the police department for civil liability. In a case like this, that lawsuit would be inappropriate and frivolous (but it still happens everyday). It is important to note that Cotton did not sue the police department and received 10,000/year for each of the 11 years from the state of North Carolina.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 10, 2006, Dr. Gary Wells, Professor of Psychology at Iowa State University, testified as an expert witness for the plaintiff Alejandro Dominguez in his trial against the City of Waukegan. Dr. Wells testified that he is an expert in eyewitness memory and eyewitness identification. He claims that he has published more than anyone in the world on these topics. Dr. Wells testified that it was improper for the Waukegan police to conduct a "show-up" two days after the subject rape, despite the fact that the rape victim said she had seen her attacker before. He opined that the police should have conducted a line-up instead. He also testified that the police should have given a warning that "the offender might or might not be in the line-up" - which was not given. This is the third case that Dr. Wells has been retained by attorney Jon Loevy. Dr. Wells also testified for the plaintiff Michael Evans this summer in his suit against the the City of Chicago and ten former Chicago police officers. (The jury returned a verdict for all of the defendants in that case). Also, in 2005, Dr. Wells testified for plaintiff Steve Manning in his suit against two FBI agents, Robert Buchan and Gary Miller. (The jury awarded Manning $6.6 million in that case, but pending post-trial motions seek to overturn that award).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link