Introduction

In the pursuit of justice, lineup procedures have long been integral to criminal prosecution. A lineup is a structured process in which a suspect, typically in custody, is presented alongside a group of individuals with similar physical appearances. Witnesses are then asked to identify the perpetrator of a crime, thereby testing the reliability of their identification. While lineups have been utilized and credited with numerous successful outcomes, their reliability is not generalized, raising questions about the true accuracy of witness judgments—a factor often given significant weight in legal proceedings. It is simultaneously a leading cause of wrongful convictions, with up to 75% of exonerated cases involving eyewitness errors (Department of Public Advocacy [DPA], 2024). The impact of false identifications accentuates the necessity of revising lineup procedures to safeguard every person’s liberties.

The Cognitive Foundations of Eyewitness Errors

At the heart of eyewitness errors lies the reconstructive nature of human memory. Human memory does not function as a perfect recording device; instead, it is shaped by both internal and external influences. Factors such as stress, suggestive questioning, and cross-racial identification challenges frequently distort witness recollections (Deffenbacher et al., 2004). For example, the "weapon focus effect" illustrates how a witness’s attention narrows to a weapon during a crime, impairing their ability to recall other critical details, such as the perpetrator’s appearance (Pickel, 1999). Hence, the memory of witnesses cannot always be considered reliable.

Lineup Procedures: Simultaneous vs. Sequential Lineups

The sequence in which a lineup is conducted has profound psychological implications.

Traditional simultaneous lineups, where all lineup members are viewed at once, often prompt witnesses to engage in relative judgments, comparing lineup members instead of matching them to their memory of the perpetrator. Wells et al. (1998) critique that this approach increases misidentifications, as witnesses may select the person who looks most like their memory of the perpetrator rather than the actual culprit.

Sequential lineups, where suspects are viewed one at a time, encourage absolute judgments, prompting witnesses to decide if each person matches their memory before moving on. This approach aligns with natural memory processes and reduces cognitive overload. Wells et al. (1998) note that this method "minimizes the temptation to compare lineup members against each other," thereby reducing errors and bias.

Erroneous identifications bolsters the argument to reform lineup procedures, as they lead to wrongful convictions and erode trust in the justice system. Sequential lineups offer a more effective alternative by supporting absolute judgments, reducing false identifications, and promoting fairness. As Wells et al. (1998) state, "the shift from relative to absolute judgment strategies not only improves lineup accuracy but also strengthens the fairness of the process," emphasizing the importance of revising lineup protocols to protect individual freedoms.

Psychological and Procedural Challenges

Despite advancements in procedural methods, psychological and procedural challenges persist, each involved with the accuracy and fairness of lineups.

One major challenge is the inherent susceptibility of memory recall to distortion. Human memory is malleable and subject to alteration, especially under traumatic conditions or when exposed to suggestive questioning. Traumatic experiences can heighten emotional arousal, which may impair the encoding and subsequent retrieval of details. Furthermore, suggestive questioning—when investigators imply or hint at a specific answer—can lead witnesses to unconsciously alter their recollection to align with the suggestion. This phenomenon, known as the misinformation effect, introduces the need for controlled and unbiased interview techniques during investigations (Arndt, 2012).

Another significant challenge is cross-racial identification difficulty. Research indicates that people have more difficulty recognizing and distinguishing faces of individuals from racial groups different from their own, a cognitive bias known as the cross-race effect (Deffenbacher et al., 2004). This effect is especially concerning in diverse societies where misidentification rates for cross-racial identifications are disproportionately high. The cognitive mechanisms behind this effect include limited exposure to faces of other races and over-reliance on general facial features rather than specific identifiers. This challenge necessitates the development of more inclusive training for law enforcement officials to recognize and mitigate the risks of cross-racial misidentifications.

Witness decision-making is also hindered by the psychological pressure to identify a suspect, even when uncertain. Witnesses may perceive their role as one of 'solving the case,' which creates a sense of obligation to select someone from the lineup. Brewer and Wells (2006) found that providing clear instructions emphasizing that the perpetrator may not be present in the lineup significantly alleviates this pressure. When witnesses understand that a selection is not mandatory, they are more likely to exercise caution, leading to a marked reduction in false-positive identifications.

Unbiased lineup instructions have proven effective in addressing this issue. Research by Wells et al. (2020) demonstrates that when witnesses are explicitly informed that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup, false-positive rates decrease substantially. This approach prevents "forced choice" identifications, in which witnesses feel compelled to select the person who most resembles their memory, even when none of the lineup members match their recollection. By shifting the focus to accuracy rather than certainty, unbiased instructions uphold the integrity of the identification process and protect innocent individuals from wrongful accusations.

Addressing these psychological and procedural challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including the use of unbiased questioning techniques, cross-racial identification training, and clear lineup instructions. These reforms are critical for enhancing the accuracy of identifications, safeguarding individual rights, and bolstering public trust in the criminal justice system.

1/19/25

Works Cited

1. Eyewitness Misidentification.” Department of Public Advocacy, 12 July 2024, https://dpa.ky.gov/kentucky-department-of-public-advocacy/about-dpa/kip/causes/misid/

2. Deffenbacher KA, Bornstein BH, Penrod SD, McGorty EK. A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law Hum Behav. 2004 Dec;28(6):687-706. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15732653/

3. Pickel, K. L. (1999). The influence of context on the "weapon focus" effect. Law and Human Behavior, 23(3), 299–311. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1023%2FA:1022356431375

4. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads.Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 603–647.https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1998-03228-001.html

5. Arndt, Jason. “Misinformation Effect.” Misinformation Effect - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics, 2012, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/misinformation-effect

6. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(1), 11–30. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F1076-898X.12.1.11

7. Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J.T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of. eyewitness identification evidence.Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3–36. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2020-06220-002.html

8. Greenspan, R. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2021). Patterns in the use of best practices for eyewitness identifications in the field. Psychology, Crime & Law, 29(2), 161–181. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1068316X.2021.2018436

9. Wang, Qi. “The Cultural Foundation of Human Memory.” Annual Review of Psychology, Annual Reviews, 4 Jan. 2021, https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-070920-023638.

10. Quigley-McBride, A.and D. Negrabee. Beyond the Description: Investigating Consistency and Accuracy in Eyewitness Descriptions of Culprits. OSF, 29 Sept. 2024. https://osf.io/bcd74/resources

11. Tuttle, M. D, Starns, J. J, Cohen, A. L (2025) Protecting the innocent in eyewitness identification: An analysis of simultaneous and ranking lineups, Journal of Memory and Language, Volume 140, 104581, ISSN 0749-596X. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749596X24000846?via%3Dihub

12. Wixted, J. T., & Wells, G. L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: A new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(1), 10–65. http://sage.cnpereading.com/paragraph/article/?doi=10.1177/1529100616686966