because it is of course possible that the suspect is in
fact not the offender. The NIJ Guide for Law
Enforcement goes a step further on this specific point
and includes the additional instruction, “It is just as
important to clear innocent persons from suspicion as
to identify guilty parties.”
At this point, it is important to discuss the poten-
tially confusing use of the terms suspectand offenderin
this context. Many law enforcement agencies have
actually changed their wording of the caution that the
offender may or may not be present to read that the sus-
pectmay or may not be present, most often with a well-
intentioned motive not to bias witnesses, but that
wording change is not a legitimate substitution. It is just
that suspecthas become a more acceptable term to use
for many people in law enforcement and the media
when referring to offenders. Television viewers are
exposed to this tendency on a regular basis on shows
where a person is on videotape driving at well over the
speed limit on the wrong side of the road, crashing into
other cars and sometimes attempting to run down or
shoot at police officers, all the while being referred to
as “the suspect” by the narrator (just saying “the driver”
would solve the problem). Granted, in some cases, the
term refers to the fact that the driver is suspectedof
being involved in the bank robbery that initiated the
chase, but it can blur the line between describing a per-
son who by all reasonable standards is currently com-
mitting a crime (an offender) versus someone who has
been apprehended after a crime has occurred as a pos-
sible candidate for the offender (a suspect). It also
comes up when the media report that the “police are
looking for two suspects in the case; the first suspect is
described as male, White, average build,” when they
really mean to say that the police are looking for two
offenders, the first of whom matches that description.
Suspectwould only work in that example if there’s
some reason to believe that the crime did not really
occur. Of course many law enforcement policies—and
the NIJ Guide, for example—do use an appropriate
alternative for offender, such as “the person who com-
mitted the crime.”
There are other important points to include as
instructions for witnesses prior to participating in an
identification test, detailed in the NIJ Guide, the
Wisconsin Model, and other sources. In some cases,
the relevance of a particular instruction depends on
the particular procedure used, but one that deserves
special attention concerns witnesses’ confidence in
their decision. Eyewitness researchers are in general
agreement that it is crucial to get some expression ofwitness confidence at the time of the identification
decision, instead of relying on what is provided at
trial, often many months later. The concern is that a
witnesses’ experiences after making an identification
might influence their confidence, most likely in an
upward direction. These experiences can range from
the unavoidable implication that the witness has iden-
tified the suspect, when the witness is summoned to
testify at the trial against that suspect (now the defen-
dant), to something subtle, such as a smile or a nod, to
something explicit, such as “Good, you’ve picked the
right person!” Therefore, it is recommended that wit-
nesses be told prior to viewing the lineup that they are
expected to state, in their own words, and not neces-
sarily on a scale of some kind, how certain they are of
their decision and that this confidence rating be
obtained prior to any kind of feedback from the per-
son conducting the lineup, subtle or otherwise.Conducting the
Identification Procedure
Almost all the research on procedure concerns photo
and live lineups. The instructions for the showup and in
situ procedures are the most important part, assuming
reasonable safeguards against influencing a witness to
say “Yes” or “No” in the case of the showup and
against choosing a particular person in the case of the
in situ procedure. The most recommended safeguard
for all identification tests, except the showup (where it
is not possible), is the double-blind procedure, the
rationale for which is to avoid unintentionally influenc-
ing the witness’s decision and, thereby, the outcome of
the lineup procedure. In general, a double-blind lineup
can be accomplished in one of at least two ways: The
person conducting the lineup does not know who the
suspect is and/or cannot see which photo or person the
witness is viewing or discussing at any particular time.
In practice, it can be difficult if not impossible to con-
duct a live lineup in such a way that the administrator
cannot see the lineup members, so the only reasonable
option is usually to have another person administer the
lineup. With a photo lineup, however, there are at least
two ways for a person who knows the suspect to con-
duct the procedure in a double-blind fashion (assuming
a sequential presentation, as detailed below). The first,
low-tech, approach is to randomize the position of the
photos (but ensuring that the first photo is a filler) and
then use folders or envelopes to conceal the photos until
the witness views them, at an angle (or with some sort
of small obstruction) that blocks the administrator’sIdentification Tests, Best Practices in——— 367I-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 367