title: Eyewitness Identification Reforms: Are Suggestiveness-Induced Hits and Guesses True Hits?
abstract: Research-based reforms for collecting eyewitness identification evidence (e.g., unbiased pre-lineup instructions, double-blind administration) have been proposed by psychologists and adopted in increasing numbers of jurisdictions across the United States. It is well known that reducing rates of mistaken identifications can also reduce accurate identification rates (hits). But the reforms are largely designed to reduce the suggestiveness of the procedures they are meant to replace. Accordingly, we argue that it is misleading to label any hits obtained because of suggestive procedures as "hits" and then saddle reforms with the charge that they reduce the rate of these illegitimate hits. Eyewitness identification evidence should be based solely on the independent memory of the witness, not aided by biased instructions, cues from lineup administrators, or the use of lineup fillers who make the suspect stand out. Failure to call out these hits as being illegitimate can give solace to those who are motivated to preserve the status quo.
authors.affiliation: Iowa State University.
authors.forename: Gary L
authors.initials: GL
authors.lastname: Wells
authors.affiliation: Augsburg College steblay@augsburg.edu.
authors.forename: Nancy K
authors.initials: NK
authors.lastname: Steblay
authors.affiliation: John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
authors.forename: Jennifer E
authors.initials: JE
authors.lastname: Dysart
keywords: eyewitness identification; false identification; suspect lineups