An armed robbery has been committed against two people. One of the victims was shot, and the other one luckily did not get harmed. The victim who was shot is going to be alright, is coherent and talking in a hospital. The other victim has gone home, out of town, and is not willing to return to observe a line-up of ‘the usual suspects’ (MGM, 1995).

 

There are suspects available. They were picked up after receiving descriptions from the victims. In order to make a positive identification at least one of the two victims needs to view the suspects to determine if any of them is the robber. Each of the suspects has been photographed by the police photographer, both side view and front view. The pictures of our suspects have been integrated with some photographs of police officers who also fill the description and also some pictures from computer searches have been integrated into the mix. Each photograph is labeled with a cross-reference number, which can be compared to a spreadsheet of names and occupations of each subject, and is randomly sorted into one of three groups. 

 

The witness in the hospital has agreed to allow the defense attorney as well as the prosecuting attorney on the case to bring the photo array to him in the hospital for viewing.  The prosecutor gives the first envelope to the victim. He only says that the pictures have been put randomly in three envelopes and he does not know which one the suspect could be in. This gives the witness the ability to not stress out about whether the suspect is in a particular envelope set or not. After this has been explained the officer leaves the room. The witness calmly goes through the images until he finds one that fits the description, gives it to the prosecuting attorney who shows it to the defense attorney. When they have both viewed the photo that the witness has chosen, they ask him to sign the back of it attesting that this is the person he has identified as the robber.

 

The other witness is not so easily convinced that her testimony would be important. She was distressed, it was dark, and she cannot be sure that she will pick the correct individual. The prosecuting attorney finally gets her to agree to meet. They meet at a coffee shop in her neighborhood. A new picture has been added to the lineup to replace the picture that was identified by the witness who was shot, so that they all look the same, with no identifiable marks. Again, the only information that is provided to the witness is that the picture of their suspect could be in any of the three envelopes, and the attorney does not know which one. After a few minutes, the witness has found three pictures which could be the suspect. She appears to be frustrated by not being able to provide a definitive answer for them, apologizes, and gives the three pictures back. One of the three pictures is that of the suspect, one is of a police officer, and one is an internet photo that was acquired by download. All three images are signed by the witness as those she has chosen to possibly be the robber. The prosecutor is satisfied with the answers by the witness, informs her that she may be required to return for the trial to testify, which she acknowledges, and they leave.

 

Eyewitness testimony can be flawed, especially if under stress or duress while witnessing the occurrence (Moses, 2001). When the situation requires an eyewitness identification it is important to assist the victim or witness in staying calm and concentrate on what they are trying to accomplish, and let them know there is no right or wrong answer. If the witness is unsure they should say so, and not behave as though they are positive when they are not.

 

The only questions that should be posed to the witness are open ended questions, such as ‘Do you see who robbed you?’ The questions should never give an indication to the witness of which they should pick, like ‘does number 4 look familiar to you?’ With this kind of leading question, the witness would begin to concentrate harder on the one who was pointed out by the one asking questions and possibly choose only because of misdirection. Police officers are necessary when finding those who have committed crimes, but are not always the best individuals to be available during the lineup or identification process. If a psychologist or police supervisor were available, they would be better suited to assist the witness into an honest identification without any assistance or prompting by the officer.

 

It is a difficult thing to become a victim of a crime, and more difficult to have to face your assailant after it has happened. When all you want to do is put it behind you, the last thing that the witness would want is to face or confront the criminal again. The stress and frustration which can occur in such a situation causes many people to give false positives just to get things over with. The patience and directness of the police department and other law enforcement personnel is important in order to help the witness/victim help them with their getting the criminal behind bars.

 

References

Garland, N. (2006). Criminal Evidence, 5th ed., McGraw, Hill Publishing, Boston, Ma.

MGM, (1995). The Usual Suspects, retrieved on July 4, 2007 from http://www.mgm.com/.

Moses, R. (2001). Misidentification, The Caprices of Eyewitness Testimony in Criminal Cases, retrieved on July 4, 2007 from http://www.criminaldefense.homestead.com/eyewitnessmisidentification.html.