Studies may reduce misidentification of criminal suspects

Eyewitnesses to crimes are called upon to identify the offender, but they sometimes finger the wrong person because they feel they have to make an identification no matter what, says an Iowa State University psychology professor.

When recognition fails, a high percentage of witnesses will say, “It's that guy,” instead of saying they don't know, said Gary Wells, who developed the dominant theory of how misidentification happens happen.

There have been about 260 exonerations across the country based on forensic DNA testing, and three out of four involve cases of eyewitness misidentification.

Wells, who started studying this problem in 1975 and has published more than 150 papers on the subject, is conducting two new studies. The first, a four-year study funded by a National Science Foundation grant, involves determining what happens when recognition fails a witness.

Iowa State students are the eyewitnesses in these experiments. A crime is simulated, and the students have to identify the suspect or suspects. Wells said the experiments try to force the memory to fail. The goal of the study is to determine what leads to failure, so misidentification can be reduced.

“We force recognition to fail by keeping the real perpetrator out of the lineup, set up bad conditions like altering the images or wait for a long period of time (to show a lineup),” he said.

Participants are encouraged to think aloud when looking at lineup photos.

“Sometimes, they use a process of elimination and look at it like a logic problem - it's not three, four or five, so it must be six,” Wells said.

Others will try to break down a face by looking at a nose or the eyes to see if they recognize some part, Wells said. They usually feel like they have to identify somebody.

The second study involves two pilot programs started in February and September, respectively, in Tucson, Ariz., and San Diego. This study is funded through private contributors and supported by organizations including the Innocence Project in New York and the American Judicature Society.

The data is taken from real eyewitnesses of serious crimes as they attempt to identify offenders through photo lineups, Wells said. The study uses a computer program developed to help determine which is the best way to display a photo lineup - the standard six photos at one time or one photo at a time.

“The witnesses look at these laptop programs without an officer or detective to influence them. They document how much time the witness takes to make a decision and the actions they go through in coming to it. The laptops also audio-record everything,” he said.

Wells said it's a highly controlled environment, and the eyewitnesses don't even know they're in the study.

Police departments - including those in New York, North Carolina, Boston and Denver, where so many DNA exonerations resulted - started looking for better ways to display lineups about three or more years ago, based on Wells' research.

Traditional photo lineups make it easy for a witness to “rationalize” their way to a conclusion, Cedar Rapids police Capt. Bernie Walther said.

Cedar Rapids investigators are looking at changing procedure so a disinterested police officer presents a handful of individual photographs to the witness - one at a time.

“It's either a yes or a no,” Walther said.

Once the witness has fingered a suspect, police try to make sure he or she is certain. Officers ask if the witness is sure enough to testify in court. That often weeds out those who aren't sure.

“We're not going to go out and arrest somebody on 80 percent,” Walther said.

Defense attorneys often complain photo lineups are unfair. In the rape trial of Bruce Braggs in Linn County District Court, for example, defense attorney Ray Scheetz asked the judge to toss out the lineup evidence, because Braggs' photo had a lighter contrast than the other photos. The judge overruled the objection.

Wells said he doesn't have enough data yet to draw conclusions and that it will take about four years to complete the data collection. Wells stressed that the study isn't set up to diminish the value of eyewitnesses, but to make them more reliable.

Eyewitnesses to crimes are called upon to identify the offender, but they sometimes finger the wrong person because they feel they have to make an identification no matter what, says an Iowa State University psychology professor.

When recognition fails, a high percentage of witnesses will say, “It's that guy,” instead of saying they don't know, said Gary Wells, who developed the dominant theory of how misidentification happens happen.

There have been about 260 exonerations across the country based on forensic DNA testing, and three out of four involve cases of eyewitness misidentification.

Wells, who started studying this problem in 1975 and has published more than 150 papers on the subject, is conducting two new studies. The first, a four-year study funded by a National Science Foundation grant, involves determining what happens when recognition fails a witness.

Iowa State students are the eyewitnesses in these experiments. A crime is simulated, and the students have to identify the suspect or suspects. Wells said the experiments try to force the memory to fail. The goal of the study is to determine what leads to failure, so misidentification can be reduced.

“We force recognition to fail by keeping the real perpetrator out of the lineup, set up bad conditions like altering the images or wait for a long period of time (to show a lineup),” he said.

Participants are encouraged to think aloud when looking at lineup photos.

“Sometimes, they use a process of elimination and look at it like a logic problem - it's not three, four or five, so it must be six,” Wells said.

Others will try to break down a face by looking at a nose or the eyes to see if they recognize some part, Wells said. They usually feel like they have to identify somebody.

The second study involves two pilot programs started in February and September, respectively, in Tucson, Ariz., and San Diego. This study is funded through private contributors and supported by organizations including the Innocence Project in New York and the American Judicature Society.

The data is taken from real eyewitnesses of serious crimes as they attempt to identify offenders through photo lineups, Wells said. The study uses a computer program developed to help determine which is the best way to display a photo lineup - the standard six photos at one time or one photo at a time.

“The witnesses look at these laptop programs without an officer or detective to influence them. They document how much time the witness takes to make a decision and the actions they go through in coming to it. The laptops also audio-record everything,” he said.

Wells said it's a highly controlled environment, and the eyewitnesses don't even know they're in the study.

Police departments - including those in New York, North Carolina, Boston and Denver, where so many DNA exonerations resulted - started looking for better ways to display lineups about three or more years ago, based on Wells' research.

Traditional photo lineups make it easy for a witness to “rationalize” their way to a conclusion, Cedar Rapids police Capt. Bernie Walther said.

Cedar Rapids investigators are looking at changing procedure so a disinterested police officer presents a handful of individual photographs to the witness - one at a time.

“It's either a yes or a no,” Walther said.

Once the witness has fingered a suspect, police try to make sure he or she is certain. Officers ask if the witness is sure enough to testify in court. That often weeds out those who aren't sure.

“We're not going to go out and arrest somebody on 80 percent,” Walther said.

Defense attorneys often complain photo lineups are unfair. In the rape trial of Bruce Braggs in Linn County District Court, for example, defense attorney Ray Scheetz asked the judge to toss out the lineup evidence, because Braggs' photo had a lighter contrast than the other photos. The judge overruled the objection.

Wells said he doesn't have enough data yet to draw conclusions and that it will take about four years to complete the data collection. Wells stressed that the study isn't set up to diminish the value of eyewitnesses, but to make them more reliable.