U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Eyewitness Identification: Guidelines and Recommendations for Identification Procedures in the United States and in Canada

NCJ Number
208935
Author(s)
A. Daniel Yarmey
Date Published
August 2003
Length
9 pages
Annotation
This article describes attempts in the United States and Canada to govern identification procedures in order to decrease the chances of incorrect eyewitness identifications.
Abstract
Approximately 4,500 innocent people are convicted each year in the United States on the basis of incorrect eyewitness identifications. Although similar estimates have not been made for Canada, mistaken eyewitness identifications are not unique to the United States. Problems of eyewitness memory were noted by ancient historians and continue to be studied today; in fact, as of 1995 there were as many as 2,000 publications on eyewitness memory. The author discusses the scientific and professional foundations of the psychological study of eyewitness memory and then describes the development of guidelines governing police lineup procedures in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged the problematic nature of eyewitness identification in a trilogy of cases in 1967 that placed general guidelines on police procedures for lineups. With the advent of DNA technology, psychological research on eyewitness memory experienced a major breakthrough leading to a handbook of national guidelines for eyewitness testimony in the United States. In Canada, the potential dangers of eyewitness evidence were recognized in the early 1980's and recommendations were made regarding police use of lineups. Many of these recommendations came following a highly publicized case of mistaken eyewitness identification in Canada that placed an innocent man in jail for 4 years. Despite the advances made in how police conduct investigations, expert testimony on eyewitness identification is still excluded in some parts of the United States and Canada.