EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE: PHOTO LINEUPS — COMMENTARY ON THE POLISH SUPREME COURT RULING OF 14 MARCH 2019, V KK 11/19 (APPROVING)

In the commented ruling, the Supreme Court considered some of the problematic aspects of the Polish photo lineup procedure, stating that improprieties in organising or conducting identifi cation procedures do not necessarily render eyewitness identifi cation evidence inadmissible. This commentary discusses the assessment of the probative value of identification evidence, as well as critically analyses the current laws regarding photo lineup practices in Poland. Finally, the commentary argues that significant and research-based changes in the Polish legal standards for eyewitness identifi cation are necessary to prevent potential miscarriages of justice, briefly discussing the most urgent of them.

Active exploration of faces in police lineups increases discrimination accuracy

Eyewitness identifications play a key role in the justice system, but eyewitnesses make errors, often with profound consequences. Errors are more likely when the witness is of a different race to the suspect, due to a phenomenon called the Own Race Bias (ORB). ORB is characterized as an encoding-based deficit, but has been predominantly tested using static photographs of people facing the camera. We used findings from basic science and innovative technologies to develop and test whether a novel interactive lineup procedure, wherein witnesses can rotate and dynamically view the lineup faces from different angles, improves witness discrimination accuracy and attenuates the ORB, compared to the most widely used procedure in laboratories and police forces around the world—the static frontal-pose photo lineup. No novel procedure has previously been shown to improve witness discrimination accuracy. In Experiment 1, participants (N=220) identified own-race or other-race culprits from sequentially presented interactive lineups or static frontal-pose photo lineups. In Experiment 2, participants (N=8,507) identified own-race or other-race culprits from interactive lineups that were either presented sequentially, simultaneously wherein the faces could be moved independently, or simultaneously wherein the faces moved jointly into the same angle. Interactive lineups enhanced witnesses’ discriminability compared to static lineups, especially when they were presented simultaneously, for both own-race and other-race identifications. Our findings suggest that ORB is an encoding-based phenomenon, and exemplify how basic science can be used to address the important applied policy issue on how best to conduct a police lineup and reduce eyewitness errors.

Distinguishing Between Investigator Discriminability and Eyewitness Discriminability: A Method for Creating Full Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves of Lineup Identification Performance

The conceptual frameworks provided by both the lineups-as-experiments analogy and signal detection theory have proven important to understanding how eyewitness lineups work. The lineups-as-experiments analogy proposes that when investigators use a lineup procedure, they are acting as experimenters and should therefore follow the same tried-and-true procedures that experimenters follow when executing an experiment. Signal detection theory offers a framework for distinguishing between factors that improve the trade-off between culprit and innocent-suspect identifications and factors that affect the frequency of suspect identifications. We integrate these two conceptual frameworks. We argue that an eyewitness lineup procedure is characterized by two simultaneous signal detection tasks. On one hand, the witness is tasked with determining whether the culprit is present in the lineup and identifying that person. On the other hand, the investigator knows which lineup member is the suspect and which lineup members are known-innocent fillers and is therefore tasked only with determining whether the suspect is the culprit. The investigator uses the witness’s identification decision and associated level of confidence to decide whether the suspect is the culprit. We leverage this realization to demonstrate a method for creating full receiver operating characteristic curves for eyewitness lineup procedures.

Factors That Can Interact with Familiarity

This chapter discusses system variables that are under the control of the criminal justice system and can be manipulated after the crime has occurred, such as the type of lineup procedure shown to the eyewitness. The chapter first discusses recall memory and the different interviewing protocols and how these may interact with familiarity to influence an eyewitness’ memory of the perpetrator as well as the environment and event. Next, the chapter focuses on recognition memory, specifically lineup identification. The different lineup procedures used to collect eyewitness evidence are discussed, in addition to how each procedure may promote higher rates of accuracy and eyewitness confidence when a familiar-stranger is the perpetrator. Last, the chapter discusses unconscious transference and the commitment effect.

Designing police lineups to maximize memory performance

How can lineups be designed to elicit the best achievable memory performance? One step toward that goal is to compare lineup procedures. In a recent comparison of US and UK lineup procedures, discriminability and reliability was better when memory was tested using the US procedure. However, because there are so many differences between the procedures, it is unclear what explains this superior performance. The main goal of the current research is therefore to systematically isolate the differences between the US and UK lineups to determine their effects on discriminability and reliability. In five experiments, we compared (1) presentation format: simultaneous vs. sequential; (2) stimulus format: photos vs. videos; (3) number of views: 1-lap vs. 2-lap vs. choice in both video and photo lineups; and (4) lineup size: 6- versus 9-lineup members. Most of the comparisons did not show appreciable differences, but one comparison did: simultaneous presentation yielded better discriminability than sequential presentation. If the results replicate, then policymakers should recommend using a simultaneous lineup procedure. Moreover, consistent with previous research, identifications made with high confidence were higher in reliability than identifications made with low confidence. Thus, official lineup protocols should require collecting confidence because of the diagnostic value added.

Metacognitive Control and Lineup Instructions: Asking eyewitnesses to recollect reduces false identification

Little theoretically-informed research investigates how non-traditional lineup tasks or metacognitive instructions might improve eyewitness identification accuracy. We used a continuous dual-process model of recognition to explain familiarity-based identification errors and develop a modified lineup procedure that increased discriminability. In four studies using a multiple lineup paradigm we compared identification performance between lineup procedures featuring differing decision types (standard simultaneous, delayed-choice, elimination) and instructions (standard, metacognitive). Metacognitive instructions about how to better evaluate memory quality improved discriminability in delayed-choice but not standard or elimination lineups. With modified simultaneous lineup procedures, metacognitive instructions could potentially enable participants to use recollection more effectively and increase accuracy even when memory is poor. While immediate post-decision confidence is a good predictor of identification accuracy, lineup modifications that improve eyewitness memory use could provide more diagnostic evidence of probable guilt across a wider range of decisions. We discuss implications for lineup theory and design.