Bill to Enhance Public Safety by Improving Accuracy of Eyewitness Identifications Set for West Virginia Senate Committee Hearing Wednesday
Hearing on SB 82 in Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday at 3 p.m.; Reforms rely on science and best practices to improve identifications in WV
(CHARLESTON, WV; February 20, 2007) – A bill that would improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications in West Virginia – and help police apprehend the true perpetrators of crimes – will be heard by the State Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday afternoon.
The hearing on SB 82 will take place at 3 p.m. on Wednesday (February 21) in the Senate Judiciary Committee room in the West Wing room at the State Capitol.
The bill’s guidelines for eyewitness identification procedures have already been implemented by other states, small towns and large cities nationwide, and they are backed by three decades of solid scientific research. Leading criminal justice organizations (including the National Institute of Justice and the American Bar Association) embrace the reforms in the bill.
“Science and real-world experience make two things clear: Eyewitness misidentification is a serious problem, and the reforms being considered in West Virginia are proven to increase the accuracy of identifications,” said Ezekiel R. Edwards, Staff Attorney and Mayer Brown Eyewitness Fellow at the Innocence Project. “Eyewitness misidentification is by far the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Scientific research conclusively shows that these reforms are effective; this research is borne out by practical experience in jurisdictions that have already implemented these reforms.” Edwards will testify at Wednesday afternoon’s hearing.
The West Virginia legislation would implement several key reforms, including:
Blind Administration
The person administering the identification procedure (usually a lineup or photo array) would not know who the suspect is and could not give the witness open or indirect cues or provide feedback if the witness asks; over 40 years of research shows that witnesses sometimes tailor their responses in identification procedures to meet the expectations of the administrator.
Proper Composition of Lineups or Photo Arrays
“Fillers” in identification procedures (members of a lineup or photo array who are not the police suspect) should be chosen to resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator, not to resemble the police suspect; also, the suspect should not stand out unduly from the fillers.
Clear Instructions to Witnesses Before Identification Procedures
The person administering the identification procedure should give a series of instructions that prevent the witness from being compelled to make a selection; these instructions (recommended by the U.S. Department of Justice) include telling the witness that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup or photo array, that the investigation will continue even if the witness is unable to make an identification, and several other specific statements that are proven to increase accuracy.
Confidence Statements from Witnesses
Immediately following an identification procedure, the witness should provide a statement in his or her own words that articulates the level of confidence he or she has in the identification; research shows that jurors rely heavily on the level of confidence a witness has in an identification, and research also shows that a witness’s confidence in an identification can be solidified over time.
Sequential Presentation of Lineup or Photo Array Members
Presenting photographs or lineup members sequentially, as opposed to simultaneously, deters the eyewitness from making a “relative judgment” (comparing the members of the procedure to each other, rather than comparing them to his or her memory of the perpetrator).
Eyewitness misidentification played a role in fully 75% of the 195 wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing nationwide, according to the Innocence Project. In many cases, multiple witnesses made an erroneous identification, leading an innocent person to be convicted. Of the six DNA exonerations in West Virginia, three involved eyewitness misidentification:
William O’Dell Harris spent seven years in prison on sexual assault charges after being misidentified by the victim in a police lineup;
Glen Woodall served five years in prison on sexual assault, sexual abuse, kidnapping and robbery charges after being sentenced to two life sentences plus 203-335 years, based in part on a partial identification made by the victim;
Larry Holdren spent 14 years in prison on sexual assault charges after being identified in a photo lineup that contained pictures of men that did not fit the witness’s initial description of the perpetrator.
“People’s lives are torn apart when they are misidentified by witnesses and convicted of crimes they did not commit. The problem goes even deeper because the true perpetrators are not brought to justice when innocent people are convicted – which is why crime victims are law enforcement agencies support efforts to reduce wrongful convictions,” Edwards said. According to the Innocence Project, eyewitness misidentification is particularly problematic for law enforcement efforts because it can lead police down the wrong path early in the investigation, hampering efforts to apprehend true perpetrators even if the misidentification is discovered before a conviction.
For more information on the causes of wrongful convictions, background on DNA exonerations nationwide and resources for making the criminal justice system more accurate, go to www.innocenceproject.org. The Innocence Project is affiliated with Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University.
##
