How should eyewitness identifications be conducted to minimize misidentification risk?

How should eyewitness identifications be conducted to minimize misidentification risk?

• A. Use non-suggestive lineups or photo arrays, proper sequential presentation when possible, administrator blind to the suspect, document procedures and disclaimers.
• B. Use verbal prompts to guide to suspect, simultaneous lineup, administrator knows who suspect is.
• C. Use only photo arrays, ensure suspect is first in line.
• D. Allow suspects to choose among several lineup photos to pick a favorite.

Answer: (A)

Eyewitness identifications are most trustworthy when the process is non-suggestive and tightly controlled to prevent bias. Using non-suggestive lineups or photo arrays means the lineup members resemble the witness’s memory and the suspect is not singled out by cues, reducing the risk that the witness is steered toward a particular person. Presenting the lineup sequentially, when possible, helps the witness compare each member to memory one at a time rather than making relative judgments across the whole group, which lowers the chance of misidentifying an innocent person. Having an administrator who is blind to which member is the suspect prevents inadvertent cues or reactions from the administrator that could influence the witness. Documenting procedures and providing disclaimers adds transparency and accountability, ensuring the process is consistently applied and the witness understands that the purpose is to determine whether the person matches memory, not to confirm guilt. Verbal prompts to guide the witness, a simultaneous lineup, or an administrator who knows who the suspect is introduce bias or cueing that can distort the witness’s identification. Relying only on photo arrays or placing the suspect first in line invites additional opportunities for bias, and allowing someone to pick a “favorite” among photos undermines the objective, controlled assessment that minimizes misidentification risk.

Eyewitness identifications are most trustworthy when the process is non-suggestive and tightly controlled to prevent bias. Using non-suggestive lineups or photo arrays means the lineup members resemble the witness’s memory and the suspect is not singled out by cues, reducing the risk that the witness is steered toward a particular person. Presenting the lineup sequentially, when possible, helps the witness compare each member to memory one at a time rather than making relative judgments across the whole group, which lowers the chance of misidentifying an innocent person. Having an administrator who is blind to which member is the suspect prevents inadvertent cues or reactions from the administrator that could influence the witness. Documenting procedures and providing disclaimers adds transparency and accountability, ensuring the process is consistently applied and the witness understands that the purpose is to determine whether the person matches memory, not to confirm guilt.

Verbal prompts to guide the witness, a simultaneous lineup, or an administrator who knows who the suspect is introduce bias or cueing that can distort the witness’s identification. Relying only on photo arrays or placing the suspect first in line invites additional opportunities for bias, and allowing someone to pick a “favorite” among photos undermines the objective, controlled assessment that minimizes misidentification risk.