Pick a Suspect, Any Suspect

Speaking of eyewitness identifications... Excluding the circle drawn around the photo, what's different about photograph number 5?  There's nothing unnessarily suggestive about that, right?  Shaun Martin has more details.

Comments

[Ivan]

I think Shaun Martin misread the opinion. He said "whenever a witness is shown a six-pack, the only photograph that has a name and ID number beneath it is the picture of the suspect?!" but according to the prosecutor's representations, which the court accepts arguendo, "the defendant’s name and an identification number [is always] at the bottom of the page, below the No. 5 photograph." So this only happens when the suspect happens to be number 5, as here. Unless the prosecutor always puts the picture at number 5 (which is possible), the photo with the name and ID under it isn't always that of the suspect.

[Mike]

Hmmm.... After re-reading the sentences a couple of times, I think you might be right. Which has me worried about something else: How many false identifications resulted from that arrangement? Having the name below there does draw the attention to No. 5, doesn't it?

[Windypundit]

I wonder if anyone's ever done a study of which photo position people are most likely to pick out of a photo array when they're just guessing...

[Aaron (no, not that one)]

I can tell you that in NY, where we still do live lineups, defendants choose position "3" approximately 90 percent of the time, thinking that the witness isn't paying attention to the middle of the lineup.

[Ivan]

I agree, it definitely does draw attention there, and it's not farfetched to think it had bad results. But I think Occam's Razor points to this being negligence rather than deviousness.