NorthJersey.com, NJ
07-03-06
State reassessing police lineups
By CAROLYN SALAZAR
STAFF WRITER
Five years ago, a rape conviction that was overturned as a result of DNA
evidence ended up putting New Jersey at the forefront of what has become a
new national crime-fighting tool.
Responding to accusations of racist and ineffective investigative methods, the
New Jersey Attorney General's Office overhauled the way police ask victims and
witnesses to identify criminals. It phased out the traditional lineup long depicted
in movies, in which people are asked to select from a row of suspects standing
behind a one-way mirror, or choose from an array of photos.
The newer method required police investigators to show one person, or photo, at
a time. The thinking was that the "sequential lineups" would prompt victims or
witnesses to compare suspects to actual memory rather than to other suspects,
reducing false identifications.
State authorities now say that may not be enough.
Attorney General Zulima Farber's office will revisit the identification method as a
result of a recent report that questioned the fairness of sequential lineups, a
spokesman said.
"We are aware of studies that have come out recently," said the spokesman,
David Wald, "and we think that's reason enough to take a close look at it again."
A study conducted by the Illinois State Police found that people were more likely
to select the wrong person if they looked at them one at a time.
"The results of this study should reinvigorate the criminal justice system to
explore other areas of improvement to eyewitness identification," the report
based on the study said.
Since their release in April, the findings have been widely discussed in lawenforcement circles and the national press.
Critics say the study was conducted unfairly, skewing the results. Officers
conducting sequential lineups weren't involved in the investigations, and officers
conducting the traditional "simultaneous" method were. That made police more
likely to give away hints, steering victims or witnesses to one suspect or another,
while presenting the photos, the critics say.
"I have some pretty serious concerns with the Illinois study," said Gary L. Wells,
a professor at Iowa State University and a leading expert on eyewitness
identification. "The results somehow seem way out of sync when you compare it
to other studies.
"I'm sure anyone who takes a careful look at the Illinois study will see that it really
doesn't tell them anything," Wells said.
Some defense attorneys believe the discussions on eyewitness identification
should prompt investigators to do away with them altogether.
"Any kind of photo lineup is inherently unreliable," said Hackensack defense
lawyer Joseph Rem. "People make observations when they are in the middle of
the greatest trauma of their lives, when they are raped or on the wrong end of a
gun barrel. So they are not focusing on their assailant's face.
"There is no question that eyewitness identification is the weakest form of
evidence in actuality, but the strongest in the eyes of a jury," Rem added. "My
suggestion is they should use it as an investigative tool but never as evidence to
a jury."
That doesn't mean another method is better, said Hudson County Prosecutor
Edward J. De Fazio. Lineup studies are so scientifically based that it's still
unclear which is more reliable, he said.
"I don't know if you are able to ascertain with certainty whether the sequential
method or the prior method is more accurate," De Fazio said. "It's very difficult to
measure the fairest way to do this."
In years past, when witnesses viewed six or seven suspects or photos at a time,
they'd often select the person from the group who looked most like their
assailant, even if they weren't positive, said Mahwah Police Chief James N.
Batelli. Sequential lineups reduce that tendency, he said.
"You definitely want a strong case, so you want to make sure eyewitness
identification is reliable, especially when so many cases are being overturned by
DNA [evidence]," Batelli said. "We don't want to put someone in jail incorrectly."
In August 1992, a Rutgers University sophomore was raped in the basement of
her New Brunswick basement apartment. Eight months later, she saw a man she
believed was her attacker and called police, who immediately arrested him.
"It was him," she later told a Middlesex County jury that convicted McKinley
Cromedy. A judge eventually sentenced Cromedy to 60 years in prison.
During a retrial six years later, Cromedy was cleared by DNA evidence.
That case, tinged with accusations of racial bias, rocked the New Jersey criminal
justice system to such levels that authorities in Trenton took an unprecedented
step: They issued guidelines requiring every single police department in the state
to begin conducting lineups where witnesses are shown one person or one photo
at a time. The guidelines also forbid any officer involved in a case to be directly
involved with the lineup process.
The state Attorney General's Office, which imposed the new police guidelines in
April 2001, has never undertaken a formal study of its own on the subject, said
Wald, the agency spokesman.
The new policy paved the way for commissions in other states or cities -including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia and Boston and Santa Clara County,
Calif. -- to endorse or mandate the sequential approach.
Elsewhere, the mandates have met with resistance from some investigators who
say the sequential method consumes more time and additional staff. But in New
Jersey, there have been few rumblings, experts say.
An informal survey of 300 law-enforcement agencies taken by the Attorney
General's Office three years ago showed police officers seemed to have adapted
to the new method.
"We have not identified any serious problems with it," said Tom Rosenthal,
spokesman for the New Jersey Public Defender's Office. "We have found a lot of
value in the AG procedure."
The Illinois study, however, cast serious doubt on the procedure.
Wells, the eyewitness identification expert, said many jurisdictions that were
considering switching over to the sequential method have put their plans on hold.
However, he emphasized: "No one who has made the change is seriously
questioning the changes they made. The proper reaction is to say, 'We need to
look at these changes again.' But they won't seriously question the changes once
they see how flawed the Illinois study is."
Wells is focusing on the positives that he says have emerged from the recent
talks.
"The good thing that has come out of this -- and not many good things have
come out of this -- is that it is forcing all these jurisdictions to become interested
in the issue," Wells said. "And if they become interested in the issue, then
changes and improvements can occur."
E-mail: salazar@northjersey.com