The criminal lineup has been a benchmark of the U.S. criminal justice system for decades and has been used to secure a criminal charge in countless cases. Many times it has also played a major role in the conviction of certain individuals.

However, a new study suggests that these traditional eyewitness testimonies that are made by persons viewing a traditional lineup are unreliable. Among the troubles with this method is that detectives who know who the suspect is may unwittingly give clues to a witness on who they are "supposed" to pick, even if that person is innocent.

A recent study conducted in Tucson, Arizona and other cities found that viewing potential suspects one by one on a computer screen produced more accurate results than the traditional lineup we are accustomed to seeing on TV. By looking at individuals one at a time, in what is known as a double-blind lineup, a witness is more likely to choose a viable suspect rather than an innocent filler. In an ordinary lineup, a witness has a preconceived idea that the suspect is in the line and there is more pressure to pick someone. That pressure can lead to false criminal charges.

But even a double-blind lineup is not infallible, and becoming a suspect can place a real burden on a person's life. Even if a falsely identified person is later cleared of any criminal charge, they may still have to live down a stigma that's already affected them, their families, careers, etc. An eyewitness testimony should never be taken lightly during the criminal process, but lineups should be kept as unbiased as possible to assure, for everyone's sake, that the right person is tried and convicted of the crime.

Source

CBS News: "Traditional lineups off base, study shows," Sep. 19, 2011