%0 Journal Article
%T Eyewitness Science and the Call for Double-Blind Lineup Administration
%A Dario N. Rodriguez
%A Melissa A. Berry
%J Journal of Criminology
%D 2013
%I Hindawi Publishing Corporation
%R 10.1155/2013/530523
%X For several decades, social scientists have investigated variables that can influence the accuracy of eyewitnesses¡¯ identifications. This research has been fruitful and led to many recommendations to improve lineup procedures. Arguably, the most crucial reform social scientists advocate is double-blind lineup administration: lineups should be administered by a person who does not know the identity of the suspect. In this paper, we briefly review the classic research on expectancy effects that underlies this procedural recommendation. Then, we discuss the eyewitness research, illustrating three routes by which lineup administrators¡¯ expectations can bias eyewitness identification evidence: effects on eyewitnesses¡¯ identification decisions, effects on eyewitnesses¡¯ identification confidence, and effects on administrator records of the lineup procedure. Finally, we discuss the extent to which double-blind lineup administration has been adopted among police jurisdictions in the United States and address common concerns about implementing a double-blind standard. 1. Introduction In April of 1980, 16-year-old Mario Hamilton was shot in the neck and killed in Brooklyn, New York. Thomas Charlemagne, 14, witnessed the shooting and ran to tell Mario¡¯s 15-year-old brother, Martell. The two boys went to the police station where they were questioned separately for over six hours. Charlemagne told the police he had seen a young man named Colin Warner, 18, shooting Mario and then flees the scene in a car driven by a 15-year-old boy named Norman Simmonds. Police showed a photo lineup that contained Warner to Martell. When he did not make an identification, officers presented Warner¡¯s photo alone and pressured Martell to identify him. Although Martell did not see the shooting first-hand, he eventually ceded to police suggestion and stated that he may have seen Warner near the scene of the crime, an identification that was used to secure Warner¡¯s indictment and conviction in May of 1982. Warner maintained his innocence, and in 1991, Simmonds signed an affidavit indicating that he alone was responsible for the murder of Mario Hamilton. Colin Warner was eventually exonerated in 2001 after spending almost 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit [1, 2]. Unfortunately, cases like that of Colin Warner are not uncommon. The advent of DNA testing has shed some light on the frequency with which mistaken eyewitness identifications and wrongful convictions can occur. Recent analyses indicate that mistaken eyewitness identifications are a primary cause of wrongful
%U http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jcrim/2013/530523/