{"id":21226,"date":"2020-07-04T00:34:06","date_gmt":"2020-07-04T00:34:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=21226"},"modified":"2020-07-08T13:05:18","modified_gmt":"2020-07-08T13:05:18","slug":"six-eyewitnesses-misidentified-a-murderer-heres-what-went-wrong-in-the-lineup","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/six-eyewitnesses-misidentified-a-murderer-heres-what-went-wrong-in-the-lineup\/","title":{"rendered":"Six eyewitnesses misidentified a murderer \u2013 here’s what went wrong in the lineup"},"content":{"rendered":"

Laura Smalarz<\/a>, Arizona State University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

On the strength of six eyewitnesses\u2019 lineup identifications, Lydell Grant was sentenced to life in prison<\/a> in 2012 for the murder of a young Texas man, Aaron Scheerhoorn, who was stabbed to death outside a Houston nightclub in 2010.<\/p>\n

All six of those eyewitnesses were wrong.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

New DNA testing on biological material collected from underneath the victim\u2019s fingernails cleared Grant and implicated another man, Jermarico Carter, who police said confessed to the killing<\/a>. Carter has now been indicted<\/a> for the murder by a grand jury, and Lydell Grant was released from prison. But his name has not been cleared.<\/p>\n

Faith in eyewitnesses runs so deep that despite the overwhelming proof of Grant\u2019s innocence, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his exoneration request<\/a>. Instead, the court wants the six eyewitnesses who originally testified against Grant to respond to his claims of innocence.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a fact that eyewitnesses make mistakes<\/a>. There have been hundreds of cases in which mistaken eyewitness identification testimony led to the conviction of innocent people<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The puzzling question in this case, though, is why did six eyewitnesses independently identify Lydell Grant as the killer and then confidently testify in court?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Mugshots of Lydell Grant (left, in 2010) and Jermarico Carter (right, in 2007) show the men don\u2019t look very similar.<\/span>
\nKHOU\/Houston Police Department<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

One might assume that Grant was the murderer\u2019s unlucky doppelganger. But a comparison of the pair\u2019s mugshots reveals that they bear little physical resemblance to one another beyond both being Black men.<\/p>\n

As an experimental psychologist<\/a> who conducts research on eyewitness identification, I\u2019ve seen hundreds of examples of highly confident yet mistaken eyewitnesses \u2013 both in the laboratory and in actual court cases. My review of the transcripts from Grant\u2019s trial suggests a simple explanation for these high-confidence mistakes: The police did not use scientific best practices for collecting the eyewitness identification evidence.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Police lineups have evolved over time, but some states still need to catch up.<\/span>
\nChicago Sun-Times\/Chicago Daily News\/Chicago History Museum via Getty Images<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Conducting a lineup with the suspect in mind<\/h2>\n

Scientific best practices for conducting eyewitness lineups<\/a> require that the person administering the lineup not know who the police suspect. Just as double-blind clinical trials in medical studies are intended to prevent patients\u2019 and doctors\u2019 expectations from affecting outcomes of the clinical trial, double-blind lineups aim to prevent witnesses\u2019 and administrators\u2019 expectations from influencing the outcomes of the identification procedure.<\/p>\n

The transcript from Lydell Grant\u2019s trial revealed that the homicide detective in charge of investigating the case administered the lineup to the eyewitnesses. Of course, he knew that Lydell Grant was the one under suspicion.<\/p>\n

Psychological experiments have shown that lineup administrators who know who the suspect is end up cuing witnesses toward that person. Compared to administrators conducting double-blind lineups, these informed administrators are more likely to ask witnesses about the suspect<\/a> and smile when witnesses are looking at the suspect<\/a> rather than at another person in the lineup.<\/p>\n

Such behaviors are often inadvertent; neither lineup administrators nor eyewitnesses may be consciously aware that they\u2019re happening. Nevertheless, these subtle behavioral cues affect eyewitnesses\u2019 decisions by making them more likely to choose the suspect<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But if the six eyewitnesses chose Lydell Grant from the lineup only because they were cued to do so by the case detective, why were they so confident in their identifications? According to the trial transcript, most of the eyewitnesses testified to having been positive when they picked Grant out of the lineup. One reported that he had identified Grant without doubt or hesitation. Another stated that the killer\u2019s face was \u201cburned into [her] memory immediately.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reinforcing what eyewitnesses \u2018remember\u2019<\/h2>\n

The witnesses\u2019 trial testimony reveals a simple explanation for these high-confidence errors: All of the eyewitnesses received confirmatory feedback following their identification of Grant.<\/p>\n

Three of the eyewitnesses reported that the detective told them that they had picked the same person other people had, though the detective himself denied having made such statements. Two other eyewitnesses, a couple, remembered discussing their selection with one another and confirming each other\u2019s decisions. One eyewitness couldn\u2019t recall whether the detective had told him anything after he identified Grant, but the detective acknowledged telling that particular eyewitness \u201cgood job\u201d following the identification. The detective also admitted making a similar comment to at least one other witness.<\/p>\n

Research has repeatedly demonstrated that simple confirming comments such as these have dramatic effects<\/a> on eyewitnesses\u2019 testimony. Not only do such statements inflate eyewitnesses\u2019 confidence in the accuracy of their identification, but they lead them to falsely remember having been that confident all along.<\/p>\n

As a result, witnesses who have received confirmatory feedback provide testimony that is highly persuasive to jurors.<\/p>\n