view. This way, if the witness says something like
“Number 4 looks a lot like the person I saw,” the lineup
administrator does not know whether the witness is
referring to the suspect or a filler photo. The relatively
high-tech approach is to use a computer to administer
the lineup, with built-in randomization and with the
screen positioned in such a way that the administrator
can’t see it. In fact, there are computer applications
available to construct and present the lineup and record
the procedure.
The other major recommendation is to present the
members of a lineup one at a time (a sequential lineup),
as opposed to all at once (a simultaneous lineup), and
that the sequential presentation be done in a very par-
ticular manner (not justone at a time). The rationale for
the sequential lineup is that it reduces the tendency of
witnesses to choose the person from the lineup who
looks mostlike the offender they saw (a relative judg-
ment strategy), as opposed to choosing a lineup mem-
ber only if he or she matches the witness’s memory
trace for the offender beyond some threshold level (an
absolute judgment strategy). Of course, if the suspect is
the offender, then the outcome from both strategies
should be the same, but in the case where the suspect is
not the offender, the relative judgment strategy can
increase the chance of that person being chosen.
There is some criticism about the recommendation
for a sequential procedure, based largely on the con-
cern that the rate of witnesses accurately identifying
guilty suspects might be lower. There are, in fact,
some data showing that the rates for choosing sus-
pects can be lower overall with the sequential proce-
dure, but it is difficult if not impossible to determine
if that means guilty people are being identified less
often—the lower rate might mean that fewer innocent
suspects are being chosen. Also, it has been argued
that some of the “accurate” choices of guilty suspects
from simultaneous lineups are essentially lucky
guesses, which are less likely to occur with the
sequential technique, and that lucky guesses are not a
legitimate route to justice. So the best-practice recom-
mendation is to use a double-blind, sequential proce-
dure. Step-by-step details are available in the NIJ
Guide and the Wisconsin Model.Recording the Procedure
Ideally, the entire identification procedure would
be video- and audiotaped. The camera(s) shouldbe positioned such that the witness and the photos or
persons in the lineup are viewable, and a microphone
that can pick up any of the witness’s spontaneous
utterances should be used. This recommendation is
not made with the intent of monitoring the conduct of
the person administering the lineup but to capture the
procedure and outcome in a way that provides as
much information as possible, especially the confi-
dence statement. In fact, most eyewitness researchers
consider what happens during the identification pro-
cedure as the onlyrelevant information, as opposed to
what the witness says about it at trial. As mentioned
previously, computers are ideal for administering the
double-blind photo lineup procedure, with digital
cameras that record directly to a disc or a hard drive,
and for monitoring decision times and the order in
which the photos were displayed.John TurtleSee alsoComputer-Assisted Lineups; Confidence in
Identifications, Malleability; Double-Blind Lineup
Administration; Lineup Filler Selection; Lineup Size and
Bias; Mug Shots; Showups; Simultaneous and Sequential
Lineup PresentationFurther Readings
Kassin, S. M. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures:
The fifth rule. Law and Human Behavior, 22,649–653.
Turtle, J., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (2003).
Best practice recommendations for eyewitness
evidence procedures: New ideas for the oldest way to
solve a case. Canadian Journal of Police and Security
Services, 1,5–18.
U.S. National Institute of Justice. (1999). Eyewitness
evidence: A guide for law enforcement(NIJ 178240).
Washington, DC: Author.
Wells, G. L., & Luus, C. A. E. (1990). Police lineups as
experiments: Social methodology as a framework for
properly-conducted lineups. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 16,106–117.
Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Turtle, J. W.,
& Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station:
A successful application of eyewitness research. American
Psychologist, 55,581–598.
Wisconsin Department of Justice, Bureau of Training and
Standards for Criminal Justice. (2005). Model Policy and
Procedure for Eyewitness Identification.Retrieved from
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/tns/EyewitnessPublic.pdf368 ———Identification Tests, Best Practices inI-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 368