research has produced a well-developed series of rec-
ommendations for improving eyewitness identifica-
tion procedures. A number of law enforcement agencies
throughout the country are now implementing some
or all these recommendations.
Some of the more significant eyewitness identifica-
tion reforms include ensuring that witnesses are prop-
erly instructed that the perpetrator might not be
present in any given lineup or photo array, so that the
witness does not feel compelled to pick someone in
every case; properly selecting lineup or photo array
“fillers” (nonsuspects) so that the suspect does not
stand out; presenting no more than one suspect in any
given lineup or photo array; conducting the identifica-
tion procedure in a “double-blind” manner—meaning
that neither the witness nor the detective administer-
ing the procedure knows which individual is the
suspect—so that the detective cannot even inadver-
tently cue the witness as to which individual to pick;
and presenting photographs of lineup members
sequentially, rather than simultaneously, so that the
witness must rely on absolute judgments drawn from
the witness’s memory rather than relative judgments
based on comparing one lineup member or photo-
graph with the others.
The most significant reform designed to prevent
false confessions is a requirement that all custodial
interrogations be electronically recorded from start to
finish. Recording serves several purposes. It deters the
police from engaging in improper coercive tactics that
can produce false confessions. It also creates a clear
record of what was said and done, so that lawyers,
judges, and juries can more fully and accurately con-
sider the reliability of any statements elicited during
an interrogation and indeed help fact finders deter-
mine accurately what the suspect said, in his or her
own words, without interpretation or paraphrasing by
police witnesses. Electronic recording also protects
the police from spurious claims of misconduct in the
interrogation room and produces powerful evidence to
help convict the guilty when a suspect freely andconvincingly confesses or incriminates himself in a
recording that can be played for the jury.Keith A. FindleySee alsoConfession Evidence; Estimator and System
Variables in Eyewitness Identification; Eyewitness
Memory; False Confessions; Identification Tests, Best
Practices in; Interrogation of Suspects; Juries and
Eyewitnesses; Neil v. BiggersCriteria for Evaluating
Eyewitness Identification; Prosecutorial Misconduct; Reid
Technique for Interrogations; Videotaping ConfessionsFurther Readings
Bedau, H. A., & Radelet, M. L. (1987). Miscarriages of
justice in potentially capital cases. Stanford Law Review,
40,21–179.
Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors of
criminal justice.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Findley, K. A., & Scott, M. S. (2006). The multiple
dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin
Law Review, 2,291–398.
Givelber, D. (1997). Meaningless acquittals, meaningful
convictions: Do we reliably acquit the innocent? Rutgers
Law Review, 49,1317–1396.
Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N.,
& Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States,
1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 95,523–560.
Radelet, M. L., Bedau, H. A., & Putnam, C. E. (1992). In
spite of innocence: Erroneous convictions in capital
cases. Boston: Northeastern University.
Risinger, D. M. (in press). Innocents convicted: An
empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97.
Rosen, R. A. (2006). Reflections on innocence. Wisconsin
Law Review, 2,237–290.
Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift
in forensic identification science. Science, 309,892–895.
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual
innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches
from the wrongly convicted.New York: Doubleday.Wrongful Conviction——— 873W-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 873