What procedures minimize lineup suggestibility and protect identifications from bias?

• A. Double-blind administration; use fair/matched fillers; sequential or well-structured presentations; clear witness instructions; thorough documentation.
• B. No blind administration but fair sequential presentation; keep filler matched; provide instructions.
• C. Investigator knows who the suspect is and points out the person.
• D. Show-up with a single suspect.

Answer: (A)

Preventing cues and bias in eyewitness identifications comes from eliminating influence on the witness and making the lineup as fair as possible. The strongest approach is double-blind administration: the person conducting the lineup does not know which member is the suspect, so they cannot unintentionally cue the witness or steer the result. Pair that with fillers who resemble the suspect and are matched in age, race, and other features, so no lineup member stands out as obviously “different.” Presenting the lineup in a sequence rather than all at once helps the witness form independent judgments rather than making side-by-side comparisons that can bias choices. Clear instructions that emphasize that the actual shooter may or may not be present reduce pressure to choose and prevent guessing for the examiner’s sake. Finally, thorough documentation of the process creates an audit trail and guards against later claims of bias.

Why the other approaches fall short: when the administrator knows who the suspect is and points them out, cues can sway the witness and inflate a confident but mistaken identification. A single-suspect show-up is highly suggestive and lacks safeguards against bias, making it easy for the witness to feel compelled to identify that person.