Promoting 
Effective 
Homicide 
Investigations 

James M. Cronin Jessica I. Toliver 
Gerard R. Murphy Richard E. Weger 
Lisa L. Spahr 

COPS Logo
Police Executive Research Forum Logo


Promoting Effective 
Homicide Investigations 

James M. Cronin 
Gerard R. Murphy 
Lisa L. Spahr 
Jessica I. Toliver 
Richard E. Weger 

COPS Logo
Police Executive Research Forum Logo

August 2007 


This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 2005-CK-WX-K011 
awarded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing services, U.S. Department 
of Justice. The opinions contained herein do not necessarily represent the official 
position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the members of Police 
Executive Research Forum. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 
discussion of the issues. 

The opinions expressed are generally those based on the consensus of executive 
session attendees; however, not every view or statement presented in this report can 
necessarily be attributed to each participant. 

Web sites and sources listed provide useful information at the time of this writing, but 
the authors do not endorse any information of the sponsor organization or other 
information on the web sites. The Internet references cited in this publication were 
valid as of August 2007. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, neither 
the author(s) nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. 

Published by the Police Executive Research Forum 
Washington, DC 20036 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
August 2007 

ISBN-13: 978-1-934485-00-2. ISBN-10: 1-934485-00-4 

Printed in the United States of America 

Edited by Craig Fischer 

Cover and interior design by Dave Williams. Cover photographs courtesy of 
iStockphoto (folder) and Brand X Pictures (fingerprints). 


Contents 

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 
Acknowledgments .......................................... iii 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

CHAPTER 2 

Homicides and Clearance Rates .............................7 

CHAPTER 3 

Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness .................19 

CHAPTER 4 

Eyewitness Identification . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 35 

CHAPTER 5 

Videotaped Interrogations .................................61 

CHAPTER 6 

DNA,Crime Labs,and Law Enforcement ........................81 

CHAPTER 7 

Cold Case Investigations ................................. 101 

Aboutthe Authors ......................................... 117 
About the COPS Office . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . 121 
About PERF ............................................... 123 

APPENDIX A 

Conference Participants .................................. 125 


APPENDIX B 

External Resources and Strategies for Homicide Units . . . 135 

APPENDIX C 

Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting 
Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures . . .. . . 137 
APPENDIX D 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department 
Eyewitness Identification Procedures ..................... 149 

APPENDIX E 

Denver Police Department 
Standard Operating Procedure and 
Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations . . . . . 159 

APPENDIX F 

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 
Cold Case Solvability Criteria ........................... 171 

APPENDIX G 

Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department 
Homicide Case Review Solvability Chart ................... 173 


Foreword 

MANY PROJECT IDEAS BEGIN WITH INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS 
among Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) members. Such instances 
serve to remind us how much we value the relationships we share 
with our members and the importance of their input. In this case, discussions 
with chiefs and sheriffs across the nation alerted us to two 
alarming trends: it seemed that in many places violent crimes were on 
the rise, while at the same time, homicide clearance rates were decreasing. 
With the support of the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services (the COPS Office), PERF hosted Promoting Effective Homicide 
Investigations, a 2-day conference in May 2006. The conference had two 
goals: to bring together practitioners and academics to discuss possible 
causes behind the decrease in clearance rates, and to present promising 
practices that individual law enforcement agencies have used to address 
the issue. 

Dr. Albert P. Cardarelli (University of Massachusetts, Boston) and 
Dr. Charles Wellford (University of Maryland, College Park) opened the 
conference by presenting their research to help illuminate the consequences 
of unsolved murders and the variables that have contributed to 
the decline in clearance rates. Their research revealed that the changing 
nature of crime, the decentralization of police departments, and the rise 
in gang violence have all had an impact on the effectiveness of homicide 
investigations. 

Law enforcement executives, academics, attorneys, and federal government 
representatives addressed the different effective strategies that 
have been developed to combat these problems, including various management 
and personnel decisions, videotaping suspect interviews, considering 
the availability of eyewitness identification options 
(simultaneous lineups versus sequential lineups), DNA analysis, and 
using cold case units and crime analysts to increase clearance rates. Case 
studies presented at the conference highlighted both the strengths and 

Foreword  


weaknesses associated with various investigation techniques. A town hall 
forum allowed attendees to discuss variables that contribute to an effective 
homicide unit. A lively discussion ensued, with participants mainly 
focusing on the role of science and technology, specifically how technology 
may at first appear to complicate the process but ultimately assists 
law enforcement by fostering change and improving investigational 
methods. 

PERF and the COPS Office hope that this publication will help law 
enforcement officials determine which promising practices are the most 
appropriate for their departments. It has been our pleasure to facilitate 
and summarize the discussion for the benefit of all. 

Chuck Wexler Carl R. Peed 
Executive Director Director 
Police Executive The COPS Office 
Research Forum 

ii  Foreword 


Acknowledgments 

WE THANK THE MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO 
this project and publication. It has been a collaborative effort, made possible 
by the collective experiences and insight offered by all those 
involved. We thoroughly enjoyed working with police executives, homicide 
detectives, and others committed to improving safety within our 
communities through the prevention and solving of violent crime. It is 
our hope that this book will help police leaders and investigators make 
informed decisions as they develop and implement initiatives aimed at 
improving homicide investigations. Further, we hope this publication 
will help to decrease crime. 

Thanks are due to our sponsors at the Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services for their support of the Promoting Effective Homicide 
Investigations Project. The COPS Office has been a steadfast 
supporter of PERF for many years. We are grateful to COPS Director 
Carl Peed, former Deputy Director Pam Cammarata, and Amy Schapiro, 
Senior Social Scientist Analyst and Program Manager, for their support 
of this project, their encouragement, and their patience. Once again the 
COPS Office has risen to the occasion to put resources where law 
enforcement needs them. 

We also thank law enforcement professionals and other distinguished 
guests who worked closely with us on current homicide investigative 
initiatives as well as those who gathered in Washington, D.C., for the 
conference to offer comments and bring a sharp focus to the issues at 
hand (see Appendix A for list of attendees). A special thanks to the presenters 
Patricia Bailey, Assistant District Attorney, New York; Dr. Albert 

P. Cardarelli, Senior Fellow (Emeritus), University of Massachusetts, 
Boston; Jung-Won Choi, Assistant General Counsel, FBI; Deputy Superintendent 
Daniel Coleman, Boston Police Department; James Doyle, 
Director, Center for Modern Forensic Practice, John Jay College of 
Criminal Justice; Assistant Director Larry Ford, ATF; J.R. Francomano, 
Acknowledgments  iii 


Assistant States Attorney, Baltimore County State Attorneys Office; 
Special Agent Brad Garrett, FBI; Captain Tag Gleason, Seattle Police 
Department; Sheila Hargis, Crime Analysis Supervisor, Austin, Texas Police 
Department; Alan Harris, Attorney, Hennepin County, Minnesota 
Attorneys Office; Chief Nannette Hegerty, Milwaukee Police Department; 
Irvin Litofsky, Director, Forensic Services Section, Baltimore 
County Police Department; Maria Maher, Chief, Detectives Division, 
Chicago Police Department; Assistant Chief Walter Martin, Detroit Police 
Department; Sheri Mecklenburg, General Counsel to Superintendent, 
Chicago Police Department; Dr. Mallory OBrien, Project Director, 
Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission, Harvard Injury Control Research 
Center; Deputy Chief Brian OKeefe, Milwaukee Police Department; 
Lieutenant Jonathyn Priest, Denver Police Department; Dr. Nancy 
Steblay, Augsburg College; Detective Jim Trainum, Washington, D.C., 
Metropolitan Police Department; Assistant Chief Louis Vega, Miami 
Police Department; Dr. Charles Wellford, University of Maryland; and 
Captain Paul J. Zinkann III, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, 
Police Department. 

In addition, we thank the contributors to each chapter in this publication. 
This publication would not have been possible without their 
valuable contributions. Also playing a critical role were many individuals 
who were interviewed or who reviewed various sections of the book, 
providing insights and suggestions. Chuck Ramsey, former chief of the 
Washington Metropolitan Police Department, reviewed the entire draft 
and made important contributions. 

Of course, this book could not have been produced without the 
efforts of our talented and dedicated PERF staff and support personnel. 
Executive Director Chuck Wexler guided this project from start to finish, 
providing insights and resources and moderating our conference. Craig 
Fischer served as our senior editor. He patiently reviewed drafts, and his 
keen eye made this a better publication. Corina Sol Brito organized and 
edited early drafts of the document. Jason Cheney and Rebecca 
Neuburger coordinated the conference. Emily Milstein-Greengart and 
Alison Pastor performed information searches and provided organizational 
assistance. 

iv  Acknowledgments 


This project traversed so many topics, departments and experts 
that we may have inadvertently left a contributor out. If so, we sincerely 
apologize. 

Lisa L. Spahr Gerard R. Murphy 
Police Executive Police Executive 
Research Forum Research Forum 

Acknowledgments v 


vi  Acknowledgments 


CALL FOR ACTION 
In 2006, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) hosted two conferences 
addressing violent crime: the Promoting Effective Homicide 
Investigations (May 25 and 26) and the National Violent Crime Summit 
(August 30). Both were instrumental in understanding 
violent crime in the United States, as well as national and local initiatives 
to reduce it.1 The primary goal of this document is to improve homicide 
investigations by exploring law enforcement agency practices and 
examining relatively new procedures that may lead to more effective 
investigations. 
The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) report of 2005 crime 
data showed a 2.4 percent nationwide increase in homicides from 2004. 
The FBIs preliminary numbers for 2006 indicate a continued upward 
trend in homicides in cities across the nation. For example, during the 
period 2004 to 2006, homicides increased by 38 percent in Cleveland. 
Other cities with significant increases in homicides in that period include 
Cincinnati (41 percent), Houston (37 percent), Las Vegas (16 percent), 
Memphis (39 percent), Newark, New Jersey (25 percent), Orlando (188 
percent), Philadelphia (22 percent), and Seattle (25 percent). 
In light of these increases, police agencies not only need to increase 
their efforts to prevent homicides and focus the publics attention on the 
Chapter 1. Introduction  1 
1 
Introduction 
1. A Gathering StormViolent Crime in America. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research 
Forum, October 2006.

violent crime problem; they also need to adopt best practices that can 
increase the effectiveness of homicide investigations. 

THE CHANGING NATURE OF 
HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS 

Homicide clearance rates in police departments are decreasing. In 1965, 
the average national clearance rate for homicide was 91 percent; in 1976 
it was 79 percent; and in 2002 it was 64 percent. Many practitioners 
attribute the declining clearance rates to several factors: an increase in 
stranger-to-stranger homicides, which are usually more difficult to solve 
than cases in which the perpetrator knows the victim; gang-related 
offenses that turn fatal; community and witness intimidation; and 
reductions in witness cooperation. 

Police departments also report that increasing numbers of petty 
arguments and incidents of disrespect lead to homicides. And other 
homicides are motivated by eye for an eye retribution. More robberies 
are ending in homicide, even when victims are compliant, handing over 
money and other valuables. The face of violence also has evolved as 
young people, including more females, resort to greater levels of violence. 
Another factor is the reentry of prisoners into communities, which 
increases the number of persons prone to violence. 

It is important to note that the decline in clearance rates may also be 
the result of organizational changes in law enforcement agencies. These 
may include changes in the structure and placement of homicide units 
within the agency (e.g., decentralization in some localities), lack of 
resources, substantial turnover of experienced personnel, poor working 
relationships with prosecutors and crime labs, inability to keep pace with 
advances in forensic technology, and poor procedures for processing and 
analyzing evidence. Additionally, backlogs and heavy caseloads within 
crime labs and coroners offices may reduce investigative effectiveness. 
The length of time it takes to get results of DNA analysis leaves offenders 
on the street to perhaps kill again or become victims themselves 
through retaliation. The combination of increased numbers of homi

2. There was a slight increase in homicide clearance rates from 1993 (62 percent) to 1999 (69 
percent), as the stranger-to-stranger homicide rate dropped rather sharply over this period. 
These numbers are drawn from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for these years. 
2  Chapter 1. Introduction 


cides and decreased clearance rates also has an effect on law enforcement 
personnel, including physical and emotional strain and decreased 
morale. 

Unsolved homicides have devastating effects on the family members 
and friends of the victims. These cases can also increase fear and anxiety 
in the community. The proliferation of gang-related homicides in many 
urban areas has made witnesses and residents reluctant to cooperate 
with law enforcement out of fear of retaliation. This fear, left unchecked, 
can hinder the ability of law enforcement to gather evidence and information 
in other homicides. 

STRENGTHENING THE 
INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION 

The criminal investigative functionthe process by which officers collect 
evidence, interview people, and compile facts for the purpose of supporting 
a prosecutionhas always been viewed as the most challenging 
of all police work. Today this function seems more complex than ever. 
Technological developments, behavioral science research, closer scrutiny 
of law enforcement practices by outside parties, staffing shortages, insufficient 
forensic analysis resources, and a lack of universal performance 
indicators are some of the issues that confront law enforcement administrators 
and investigators. 

Just since the beginning of 2005, many agencies have grappled with 
investigative challenges. For example, in Washington, D.C., then-Police 
Chief Charles H. Ramsey, then-Mayor Anthony Williams, and the City 
Council engaged in a very public debate over whether criminal investigators 
should be videotaping suspect interrogations. Harold Hurtt, 
shortly after being named Houston police chief, called for a moratorium 
on Harris County capital punishment in cases where DNA evidence was 
instrumental in a conviction because of problems with the police departments 
crime lab (see Chapter 6 for a more detailed discussion). In 
Boston, then-Commissioner Kathleen OToole overhauled procedures 
for witness identification of suspects, relying on recommendations from 
the U.S. Department of Justice for the blind administration of photo 
arrays. 

Chapter 1. Introduction 3 


Technological advances can be viewed as a double-edged sword by 
law enforcement because they are capable of helping to convict a suspect 
but also have the potential to expose law enforcement shortcomings or 
errors. Many law enforcement departments now videotape interrogations, 
but a large number still do not. Those that do videotape face a 
series of difficult questions, including when and how to videotape and 
what equipment to use. 

Scientific advances in DNA research have contributed to the accurate 
identification of offenders, but the required scientific protocols have 
raised similar questions for departments about when and how to collect, 
analyze, and store DNA samples. 

Psychological research has documented the subjective nature of 
human interactionincluding how people hold biasesespecially 
regarding crime and disorder. These biases can affect law enforcement 
work, too, and have affected the long-held procedures by which officers 
conduct lineups and arrange photo arrays for witness and victims. 

These are just some examples of how the investigative process has 
grown more complex. American law enforcement agencies are struggling 
to find answers to the questions posed above as they strive to conduct 
rigorous and objective investigations that contribute to accurate convictions. 
Videotaping interrogations, using sequential photo lineups, and 
knowing how to use DNA effectively can help investigators identify suspects, 
prosecute the guilty, and exonerate the innocent. 

Some agencies have adopted innovative investigative policies and 
practices to improve their clearance rates. These agencies realize that an 
effective homicide unit is more than the sum of particular resources and 
talented investigators. An effective homicide unit also requires support 
from specialized intelligence units, an efficient crime lab, productive 
coordination with prosecutors, effective training programs, and many 
other elements to produce success. Many agencies have applied community 
policing strategies to homicide investigations, knowing that residents 
trust in law enforcement fosters a greater willingness to cooperate 
with officers during an investigation. 

Because neither the law enforcement nor prosecutorial processes are 
perfect, there must always be concern that wrongful convictions can 
occur. In fact, one of the most significant developments in criminal justice 
during recent decades has been the growing understanding of how 

4  Chapter 1. Introduction 


fallible the U.S. justice system is, as new technologies, DNA evidence in 
particular, have exonerated many people who had been convicted and 
sentenced to long prison terms or even to death. To prevent this, law 
enforcement administrators must consider an ever-growing number of 
policy options, scientific protocols, and legal safeguards. The challenge 
for law enforcement and prosecutors is to make sense of this ever-
increasing complexity while preventing wrongful convictions. 

PROMOTING EFFECTIVE HOMICIDE 
INVESTIGATIONS CONFERENCE 

The Promoting Effective Homicide Investigations conference, held 
May 2526, 2006 in Washington, D.C., and sponsored by the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), served as the 
foundation for this publication. PERF invited more than 100 law 
enforcement and related personnel, including chiefs, commanders, 
detectives, crime scene personnel, crime analysts, prosecutors, and 
defense attorneys, to discuss dynamic and successful approaches to 
homicide investigations. The meeting served as the basis for identifying 
and examining the ways that law enforcement agencies work to increase 
clearance rates while preventing wrongful convictions, including videotaping 
interrogations, suspect lineups, photo arrays, DNA collection and 
analysis, and cold case squads. 

REPORT CONTENTS 

This publication, which is intended to help agency executives, administrators, 
investigators, and prosecutors increase the effectiveness of homicide 
investigations, focuses on the policy options, scientific protocols, 
and legal safeguards confronting law enforcement executives. It includes 
lessons learned and challenges faced as well as success stories from 
agencies with experience implementing these policies. The contents are 
based on information gathered from conference participants, along 
with data collected during site visits at selected departments and interviews 
conducted by PERF staff with law enforcement professionals and 
other interested parties throughout 2006. Examples of policies for 

Chapter 1. Introduction 5 


homicide units, cold case squads, and other materials are included in the 
appendixes. 

Several themes emerge from this publication. First, there is no perfect 
formula for preventing and/or solving homicides, but a number of 
remarkable initiatives and promising practices have helped agencies in 
their investigations. Second, despite the differences among law enforcement 
agencies, many face the same problems when dealing with an 
increasing crime rate and a reduction in clearance rates. Law enforcement 
administrators can find valuable assistance in the experiences of a 
neighboring agency, or in the determination of a particular investigator 
to solve problems and get things done. Departments should evaluate 
their needs, resources, and capabilities in all areas to determine which 
approaches are most beneficial to them. As homicide rates rise in many 
places around the country and clearance rates decrease, the information 
in this publication will give police executives and investigators a starting 
point for developing policies and practices to increase overall investigative 
effectiveness. 

6  Chapter 1. Introduction 


Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates  7 
ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS 
(FBI) Annual Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2005, the 
number of homicides in the United States increased by 4.8 percent 
compared to 2004the largest single-year increase for homicides in 
14 years. And, for June 2006 the trend continued, with preliminary UCR 
data showing that homicide increased by 0.3 percent, with a much larger 
increase of 6.7 percent in cities with populations of 1 million or more. 
While the number of homicides in the U.S. has fluctuated since the 
1960s, the number of homicides being solved has decreased in that time. 
Homicide clearance rates have decreased by approximately 30 percent 
since the 1960s.Despite this overall national decrease, however, some jurisdictions 
have maintained their ability to solve homicides at a high rate. 
This chapter provides an overview of homicide rates and clearance 
rates in the United States. It discusses the effect of unsolved homicides 
on the department and the community. This chapter also highlights 
trends affecting homicide investigations and investigative factors associated 
with cleared homicide cases. Strategies for improving homicide 
clearance rates are examined, as well. 
OVERVIEW OF HOMICIDE RATES 
AND CLEARANCE RATES 
Since 1930, the FBI has annually collected data on the number of crimes 
reported from more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the United 
2 
Homicides and 
Clearance Rates

States and the number of crimes that are cleared by an arrest. The FBI 
releases this information to the public through its UCRs. For the purposes 
of the UCR, a crime is considered cleared if at least one person has 
been 1. arrested, 2. charged with the crime, and 3. handed over to the 
courts for prosecution.1 

The UCR also considers some cases cleared when certain exceptional 
means are met. For a case to be cleared by exceptional means, the 
law enforcement agency must have identified the offender; gathered 
enough evidence to make an arrest, charge the offender, and turn him 
over for prosecution; identified the offenders exact location; and 
encountered some circumstance beyond the agencys control that prevented 
it from making an arrest. An example of a homicide cleared by 
exceptional means would be a homicide/suicide. Self-defense homicides 
also are considered cleared by exceptional means. 

The homicide clearance rate is determined by dividing the total 
number of homicides reported in a year by the number of arrests and 
exceptional means homicides. For the purpose of this report, the terms 
cleared, closed, and solved will be used interchangeably. 

The UCR homicide clearance rate is also affected by solved cold case 
homicides (homicides that occurred in previous years but were solved 
during current reporting years). In some years, some agencies might 
have a clearance rate greater than 100 percent. If a homicide committed 
in 1992 was solved in 2004, for example, the 2004 homicide clearance 
rate would be artificially high because the homicide was not reported in 
2004 but was included as a cleared case in 2004. Conversely, if a death 
from a previous year is ruled a homicide in the current year it counts as 
a current year murder. 

Homicide Rates 19612005 

Figure 1 shows the number of homicides reported by law enforcement 
agencies in the United States from 1961 to 2005. It shows an increase in 
homicides from the 1960s to the early to mid-1990s. In 1993, 24,526 
homicides were reported in the U.S., but by 2004 that number dropped 
to 16,137. In 2005, a 3.4 percent increase in the number of homicides, 

1. Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, 2004. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf 
8  Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates 


Cleared by Exceptional Means. In certain situations, law enforcement 
is not able to satisfy the three conditions necessary to clear a 
homicide by arrest. Yet if agencies can answer all of the following 
questions in the affirmative, they can clear the offense exceptionally for 
the purpose of reporting to the UCR. 

1. 
Has the investigation definitely established the identity of the 
offender? 
2. 
Is there enough information to support an arrest, charge, and to 
turn over to the court for prosecution? 
3. 
Is the exact location of the offender known so that the subject 
could be taken into custody now? 
4. 
Is there some reason outside law enforcement control that precludes 
arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender? 
Examples of Exceptional Clearances. Generally, an offense can be 
exceptionally cleared when it falls into one of the following categories. 
The list is not all-inclusive; there may be other circumstances in which 
a law enforcement agency is entitled to an exceptional clearance. 

1. 
Suicide of the offender. (The person who committed the offense is 
dead.) 
2. 
Double homicide. (Two persons kill each other.) 
3. 
Deathbed confession. (The person who committed the offense 
dies after making the confession.) 
4. 
Offender killed by police or citizen. 
5. 
Confession by an offender who is already in law enforcement custody 
or serving a sentence. (This is actually a variation of a true 
2. Ibid. 
Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates 9 


clearance by arrestthe offender would not be apprehended but 
in most situations would be prosecuted on the new charge.) 

6. 
Offender is prosecuted by state or local authorities in another city 
for a different offense or is prosecuted in another city or state by 
the Federal Government for an offense that may be the same. (Law 
enforcement makes an attempt to obtain the return of the offender 
for prosecution, but the other jurisdiction will not allow the 
release.) 
7. 
Extradition denied. 
8. 
Victim refuses to cooperate in the prosecution. (This action alone 
does not unfound the offense. The answer must also be yes to 
questions 1, 2, and 3 in the section Cleared by Exceptional Means.) 
9. 
Warrant is outstanding for felon but before being arrested the 
offender dies. (The method of death is irrelevant.) 
10. The handling of a juvenile offender either orally or by written notice 
to parents in instances involving minor offenses such as petty larceny, 
and no referral is made to juvenile court as a matter of publicly 
accepted law enforcement policy. 
The UCR recognizes that departmental policy in various law 
enforcement agencies permits discontinuing an investigation and 
administratively closing cases for which all investigation has been 
completed. The administrative closing of a case or the clearing of it by 
departmental policy does not permit exceptionally clearing the offense 
for UCR unless all four questions mentioned earlier can be answered 
yes. Additionally, the recovery of property does not clear a case. Clearances 
in accordance with UCR procedures should have no effect on 
whether an agency has internal policies for closing a case or discontinuing 
an active investigation.  

10  Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates 


compared to 2004, indicated that the downward trend may be ending. 
The preliminary data for 2006 show a continued increase in the number 
of homicides. 

The number of homicides experienced by individual jurisdictions 
does not necessarily follow the national trend depicted in Figure 1. Some 
jurisdictions have seen a decrease greater than the national average during 
the late 1990s, while other jurisdictions have experienced an increase 
in reported homicides. 

Figure 2 controls for the increase in the U.S. population, showing the 
homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants from 1961 to 2005. This figure 
indicates that the current homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants is close 

Figure 1. Graph showing Reported Homicides in U.S. from 1961 to 2005 

Source of Data: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 

Figure 2. Graph Showing Rate of Reported Homicides in the U.S. per 100,000 Inhabitants 
from 1961 to 2005 

Source of Data: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 

Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates  11 


to the homicide rates of the 1960s. During the 1960s there were approximately 
5 homicides for every 100,000 people in the U.S. In 2005, the 
homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants was 5.6, a figure that is 0.1 higher 
than in 2004. Similar to Figure 1, this figure indicates a decrease in the 
homicide rate beginning in 1994. 

Clearance Rates 19612005 

Figure 3 depicts the homicide clearance rates in the U.S. from 1961 to 
2005. An arrest was made or homicides were otherwise cleared in 92 
percent of the cases in 1961 and only 61 percent of homicides in 2005. 
While the national homicide clearance rate for the U.S. has fallen, the 
homicide clearance rates for some individual jurisdictions have consistently 
remained above the falling national rate. Cities such as Dallas, Milwaukee, 
and San Jose have historically had higher homicide clearance 
rates than the national average, while other cities have had consistently 
lower homicide clearance rates than the national average. There is some 
debate over using clearance rates as a measure of law enforcement performance 
(see Chapter 3 for additional information on performance). 
While the arrest of a suspect is an important step in the investigative 
process, little attention is paid to how many of those arrests result in convictions. 
Yet clearance rates are often defined as the arrest of the most 
probable crime suspect. 

Figure 3. Figure of Homicide Clearance Rates in the U.S. from 1961 to 2005 

Source of Data: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 

12  Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates 


CHANGING TRENDS IN 
THE NATURE OF HOMICIDES 

Traditionally and typically, homicides have been crimes of passion committed 
by family members or close acquaintances. The relationship 
between the offender and victim and the circumstances surrounding the 
homicide made the crimes easier for law enforcement to solve. These 
types of homicides (referred to as acquaintance homicides) generally 
result from an argument and are frequently unplanned. Witnesses are 
more likely to hear or see something in these cases. And in many 
acquaintance homicides the offender is more likely to surrender to law 
enforcement because of feelings of guilt.3 In recent years, however, the 
number of homicides involving strangers has grown. This has been 
attributed to an increase in drug activity and firearms possession among 
youth. A study examining homicide trends in San Diego from 1970 to 
1980 identified a doubling of the stranger homicide category, from 33 
percent of all homicides in 1970 to 66 percent in 1980.4 

Stranger homicides are more difficult to solve. For one thing, it is 
more difficult to determine the motivation for the crime. Second, it is 
more difficult to identify suspects simply because the pool of suspects in 
stranger homicides is larger than in acquaintance homicides. 

Variables Affecting Law Enforcements 
Investigation of Homicide Cases 

Several major variables have emerged that hamper the ability of departments 
to investigate and solve homicides. These variables include offender 
reentry, illegal immigrants as reluctant witnesses, witness intimidation and 
noncooperation, and the influences of thug culture on communities. 

Offender Reentry 

Across the country large numbers of prisoners are being released to communities
about 650,000 per year, according to the U.S. Department 

3. Richardson, D., and R. Kosa. An Examination of Homicide Clearance Rates: Foundation for the 
Development of a Homicide Clearance Model. 2001. http://www.policeforum.org/upload/Homicide 
%20Clearance%20Rates%20-%20Model_576683258_1229200516132.pdf 
4. Gilbert, J.N. (1983). A Study of the Increased Rate of Unsolved Criminal Homicides in San 
Diego, CA, and Its Relationship to Police Investigative Effectiveness. American Journal of Police: 
An Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory and Research 2 (1983), 149166. 
Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates  13 


of Justice, and a significant number are returning to the countrys population 
centerslarge cities and densely populated counties. They return 
with problems such as poor health and poor prospects for employment 
that make their assimilation into society difficult. Many released prisoners 
revert back to criminal activity, including violent crime, as they try 
to settle old vendettas or establish a criminal enterprise on someone 
elses turf. In some cases, their mere presence creates fear in community 
residents. According to a recent COPS Office report, Roughly two-
thirds of released prisoners are rearrested within three years of release; 
nearly half of all releasees return to prison within the same period, either 
for a new crime or for a technical violation of the conditions of their 
release.5 

Illegal Immigrants as Reluctant Witnesses 

The growing diversity in the United States and the increase in illegal 
immigration have also affected law enforcements ability to investigate 
homicides. In some immigrant communities gangs such as MS 13, whose 
members have strong ties to recent immigrants, prey on these people. 
Immigrants from certain countries may fear police officers, based on 
their interaction with law enforcement in their country of origin, making 
them reluctant to cooperate during an investigation. Additionally, 
illegal immigrants who witness a homicide may be reluctant to come forward 
for fear of deportation. In cases where immigrants do come forward, 
law enforcement agencies often lack the skills necessary to work 
with minority communitiesboth in interpreting and having an awareness 
of cultural differences. This problem may worsen as illegal immigration 
becomes a major political issue, and Congress may increase 
immigration enforcement measures while local communities consider 
laws or policies requiring local law enforcement to inquire about the 
legal status of those they encounter. 

Thug Culture 

The growth of a thug culture (or oppositional culture), especially in 
Americas inner cities, has also had an impact on the ability of law 

5. LaVigne, Nancy G., Amy L. Solomon, Karen A. Beckman, and Kelly Dedel. Prisoner Reentry and 
Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 
2006, p. 8. 
14  Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates 


enforcement to investigate homicides. The term thug culture refers to 
community members who reject the values and aspirations of mainstream 
society. Thug culture members typically gain respect through 
violence.6 For example, in 2004, a DVD titled Stop Snitchin  surfaced 
in Baltimore, depicting drug dealers complaining about former associates 
who had cooperated with law enforcement. A well-known National 
Basketball Association player was also featured in the DVD. The DVD 
soon became an underground hit that led to Stop Snitchin T-shirts, 
which became popular among hip-hop artists who helped spread the 
message across the country. 

Witness Intimidation 

Lower socioeconomic neighborhoods are greatly affected by local gangs, 
whose members tend to see violence as a reasonable response to resolving 
conflicts. Gang members often intimidate witnesses into not cooperating 
with law enforcement. Cities such as Baltimore and Boston have 
had several recent cases where witnesses have been killed for cooperating 
with law enforcement. 

Consequences of Unsolved Homicides 

Unsolved homicides hamper the healing process for the family and 
friends of the victim, and have a significant effect on communities and 
all aspects of the criminal justice system. In addition to affecting the 
criminal justice systems ability to deter crime, reduced clearance rates 
may lower the publics confidence in the police, increase fear in the community, 
and affect officer performance. Of course, the most important 
consequence of an unsolved homicide is that a killer remains free, able to 
commit additional murders or become a victim himself. 

Deterrence 

The decrease in arrests for homicides over time means there has been a 
decrease in the effectiveness of the criminal justice system to hold homicide 
offenders accountable. This, in turn, can lead to a decrease in both 

6. Sherman, L., D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway. Preventing Crime: 
What Works, What Doesnt, Whats Promising. A Report to the United States Congress. Washington, 
D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1997. http://www.ncjrs.gov/works/ 
Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates  15 


the general and specific deterrent effect of punishment.7 Under the specific 
deterrence theory, offenders who are arrested and punished are less 
likely to commit new crimes because they do not want to be punished 
again. The general deterrence theory holds that the threat of apprehension 
and punishment deters people generally from committing crimes in 
the first place. To the extent that offenders literally get away with murder 
and the public knows about it, both types of deterrence can be 
expected to diminish. 

Officer Performance 

Unsolved homicides can have an impact on the productivity of a homicide 
investigator. New cases are assigned to the officer, decreasing the 
amount of time an officer has to spend on the unsolved case. Additionally, 
unsolved homicides can affect the entire department. With an 
increase in the number of unsolved homicides, a department may have 
to reallocate additional resources to the homicide unit to assist in solving 
cases, thereby reducing resources in another area. 

Public Fear 

Unsolved homicides can reduce the publics confidence in the ability of 
officers to do their job and can lead to an increase in the level of fear 
in the community. This lack of confidence and increased fear can make 
residents reluctant to come forward and cooperate with the police. The 
lack of cooperation affects the investigators ability to solve cases, which 
contributes to an increase in unsolved cases, completing the vicious 
circle. Fear is further heightened in communities with gangs who are 
known to intimidate witnesses to prevent them from cooperating with 
law enforcement.8 

The Effects on Families and Friends 

An unsolved homicide also affects the victims family members and 
friends, increasing their sadness, frustration, and anger. In addition to 

7. Beccaria, C. On Crimes and Punishment. Translated by H. Paolucci. (Original work published in 
1764). New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1963. 
8. Finn, P. and K.M. Healey. (1996). Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation. Washington, 
D.C.: National Institute of Justice, Issues and Practices, NCJ 163067, November 1996. 
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163067.pdf 
16  Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates 


being upset about the death and angry with the perpetrator, family 
members may become upset with the police if an arrest is not made, 
especially if they believe that the police have failed to work hard enough 
on the case. This may make them less likely to cooperate with law enforcement 
in the future. Additionally, children who witness a homicide may 
suffer psychological damage, such as becoming extremely fearful of additional 
violent acts to their family, friends, and even themselves.9 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 

Law enforcement executives should be cognizant of a number of issues 
regarding homicide clearance rates. Each of these issues is explored in 
more detail in subsequent chapters. The first consideration is whether an 
agency should have a centralized or decentralized homicide unit. Some 
officials argue that decentralized units allow investigators to work more 
closely with residents and patrol officers assigned to neighborhoods and 
that, in turn, helps with identifying witnesses and informants and generally 
improves the flow of information to investigators. Others argue that 
a decentralized model has costs in terms of loss of efficiency and investigative 
expertise that offset any benefits gained from decentralization 
(see Chapter 3 for an additional discussion of decentralization). At this 
point, limited research has been conducted into the efficiency and effectiveness 
of the different models, so departments need to consider which 
arrangement best fits their needs and resources. 

The second consideration for law enforcement executives is the positive 
effect of cold case squads on homicide clearance rates. Cold case 
squads review older unsolved homicide cases to determine if there is a 
possibility of clearing the case. If the case is deemed solvable after 
reviewing the homicide file, the cold case squad begins an investigation. 
(See Chapter 7 for more information on cold case units.) 

Closely related to cold case units is the third area affecting homicide 
clearance rates, the use of DNA evidence. Recent advances in technology 
now make it possible to link small amounts of DNA evidence found at a 

9. Stiles, M. Witnessing Domestic Violence: The Effect on Children. American Family Physician 
66/11, December 1, 2002. http://www.aafp.org/afp/20021201/medicine.html 
Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates  17 


crime scene with suspected offenders. Some police departments have 
received federal funding to examine DNA evidence. For example, the 
Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department was awarded a $100,000 federal 
grant to examine DNA evidence. This, in conjunction with the work 
by its cold case squad, has led to an increase in its homicide clearance 
rates. (See Chapter 6 for more information on DNA.) 

Other areas that law enforcement executives should consider that 
may affect their ability to make an arrest in a homicide case and are helpful 
during prosecution include: eyewitness identification techniques 
(Chapter 4); videotaping interrogations (Chapter 5); and the police 
departments working relationship with, and authority over, the crime 
lab (Chapter 6). 

CONCLUSION 

The practices and procedures of a police department and its individual 
officers can affect the departments homicide clearance rate. The national 
clearance rate for homicides in the United States has been declining 
since the 1960s, but during that time some police departments have 
maintained consistently high clearance rates. Police executives should 
examine the policies of those departments with consistently high clearance 
rates to determine whether they have implications for improving 
their own homicide clearance rates. 

18  Chapter 2. Homicides and Clearance Rates 


Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness  19 
1. Morgan Quitno Press, Lawrence, Kansas, publishes one such annual list: City Crime Rankings. 
http://www.morganquitno.com 
THE INVESTIGATION OF A HOMICIDE IS ONE OF THE MOST 
critical responsibilities of any local law enforcement agency. 
Police chiefs and homicide commanders often are judged by the 
number of homicides that occur in their jurisdictions and by their ability 
to clear cases. The FBIs annual Uniform Crime Report highlights 
violent crime, including the number of homicides in each jurisdiction. 
The news media routinely use such data to determine whether a city is 
safe or dangerous1 and to make overall, but simplistic, judgments about 
the quality of life of various cities. Residents react to increased homicides 
and large numbers of unsolved homicides with great concern, and sometimes 
indicate that their confidence in a law enforcement agency is 
affected by these rates. 
This chapter focuses on some of the management and personnel 
policies of homicide units that agency administrators should consider 
when examining effectiveness. The first section of this chapter presents 
an overview of the organizational characteristics of homicide units. The 
second section discusses the influence of organizational characteristics 
on clearance rates and effectiveness, using research findings and current 
practices to illustrate the role that policies and procedures play in making 
a homicide unit effective. 
3 
Managing Homicide Units 
for Effectiveness

ORGANIZATIONAL 
CHARACTERISTICS 

Homicide units, like police departments, vary significantly in size and 
responsibilities. Table 1 presents an overview of several homicide units, 
including personnel assigned to the units and several other indicators 
that highlight differences. 

As can be seen in Table 1, departments serving cities with similar 
populations do not always have similar numbers of personnel. The number 
of detectives in a homicide unit and the number of cases assigned to 
those detectives vary significantly. A detective in Seattle may have a case-
load of only one homicide while a detective in Detroit may carry a case-
load of 10 homicides. 

Table 1. Homicide Unit Characteristics by Demographic Variables 

Police 
agency 
City 
pop. 
Sworn 
personnel 
Homicide 
detectives 2004 homicides 
NUM. 
PER 
1,000 
RESI-
DENTS NUM. 
PER 100 
SWORN 
PERSON-
NEL NUM. 
PER 
HOMICIDE 
DETECTIVE 
CLEAR-
ANCE 
RATE 
Houston 1,953,631 4,905 2.51 62 1.26 272 4.38 59.6% 
Las Vegas 
Metro 
1,800,100 3,200 1.88 24 0.75 138 5.75 54.2% 
San Jose 904,522 1,354 1.41 11 0.81 24 2.18 83.3% 
Detroit 900,198 3,252 3.75 39 1.19 383 9.82 37.4% 
Memphis 678,988 2,087 3.32 24 0.76 107 6.68 80% 
Baltimore 609,779 3,200 5.24 48 2.50 276 3.45 59.4% 
Seattle 571,480 1,280 2.23 19 1.79 24 1.04 70.8% 
Boston 569,165 1,900 3.62 20 1.05 61 3.05 27.9% 
Washington 
D.C. Metro 
557,598 3,615 6.97 73 1.16 198 4.71 60.6% 
Kansas 
City, MO 
441,545 1,289 2.89 22 1.70 87 3.95 63% 
Oakland 399,484 700 1.91 13 1.85 88 6.76 34.9% 
20  Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness 


The numbers in this chart must be considered in light of dozens of 
factors or conditions that exist in one city but not another. The concentration 
of poverty, the level of education, the population density, or a 
citys square mileage can influence these numbers. The type of crime can 
influence the numbers, as well. A city with a high rate of domestic violence 
might have a higher clearance rate than a city with a high rate of 
gang violence. Other factors, such as witness cooperation or the existence 
of a witness protection program can influence the homicide and homicide 
clearance rates. 

Although comparing agency attributes is an interesting exercise, it 
does not provide much guidance for managers to consider when examining 
their own homicide units. Rather, managers have to carefully 
examine the goals and resources of their own agency to determine the 
appropriate staffing levels and caseloads for investigators. Agencies 
should develop and periodically evaluate measures of workload and 
effectiveness for investigators.2 

Responsibilities of the Homicide Unit 

Many factors must be taken into account when comparing homicide 
units, police departments, and clearance rates. In many cases, the responsibilities 
of units can be quite different, with many units being 
responsible for investigating other matters in addition to homicides. 
Some of the other crimes investigated by a homicide unit can include: 
in-custody deaths, suicides, serious injuries to prisoners, accidental 
deaths, aggravated assaults with weapons, officer-involved shootings, 
kidnappings, cold cases, and industrial accidents with life-threatening 
injury. 

Some homicide units are responsible for investigating shootings, 
stabbings and other serious assaults where the victim did not die. Some 
refer to these incidents as failed homicides, and attribute the failure to 
the availability of medical trauma centers and advances in emergency 
medical care. The Detroit Police Department homicide unit, for example, 
now takes responsibility for a case if the assault victim is listed in 

2. Williams, Gerald L. Criminal Investigations, in Local Government Police Management, International 
City/County Management Association, Washington, D.C.: 2003. 
Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness  21 


critical condition. The Kansas City, Missouri, and Boston homicide units 
also investigate attempted homicides, while the Seattle Police Department 
has consolidated the investigations of assaults and homicides into 
one unit. 

Another area of responsibility for some homicide units is officer-
involved shootings. Some units respond only if a suspect is shot, while 
others respond to any scene where an officer intentionally discharged a 
firearm. A few agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department 
and the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department, have created 
special units apart from homicide units to investigate officer-involved 
shootings and other use-of-force investigations, which allow homicide 
units to focus their time and resources solely on homicides. In some 
agencies, depending on the circumstances of the shooting, an internal 
affairs unit may investigate the shooting to determine whether the shooting 
is consistent with agency policies. 

Centralization versus Decentralization 

Some large police departments have decentralized some or all of 
their detective functions by moving investigators from a central 
location (e.g., headquarters) to districts and assigning them to specific 
geographic locations.3 Community policing, which emphasizes decentralization 
as a means of improving relations with residents and increasing 
trust, has been the primary motivation in this decision. It 
would follow, therefore, that decentralized investigative units should 
be more effective because of a greater understanding of area crime 
patterns and a better working relationship with the people who live and 
work there. 

For some departments, the trend toward decentralization has included 
homicide units. Professor Charles Wellford of the University of Maryland 
stated, The logic of community policing, as it is applied 
to a homicide investigation situation, suggests to me decentralization 
can help overcome the reluctance of community members to assist 
policeprovided that the level of morale and prestige that comes with 

3. Wycoff, Mary Ann. Investigations in the Community Policing Context. Washington, D.C.: Police 
Executive Research Forum, 2001. 
22  Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness 


participation in a central unit can be maintained by the department. 
That is a big IF and one that needs careful consideration.

4 
Furthermore, while decentralization provides significant advantages 
for some investigative units, it may not provide those same advantages 
for all units. Anecdotally, a number of large departments have found 
that decentralization of major crime investigative units, such as robbery 
and homicide, does not increase productivity. Several years ago, the 
Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department decentralized its 
homicide unit, but because the results were mixed, Chief Charles Ramsey 
reevaluated his decision and centralized the unit, in part because 
decentralization diluted the pool of talented homicide investigators and 
supervisors, making them less effective. 
According to experienced law enforcement officials, the complexity 
of both the crime of homicide and the investigation of homicides 
requires some form of centralization.5 Some very large police departments 
have homicide detectives in districts, but also maintain a centralized 
homicide unit for high-profile or more complex cases. In the New 
York City Police Department, for example, precinct detectives are 
responsible for homicides within their precinct; however, homicide 
detectives from the centralized unit can respond to assist precinct detectives 
and play a supporting role during investigations. Ultimately, the 
most effective arrangement may be based on the factors specific to a particular 
jurisdiction, depending on workload, jurisdiction size, expertise, 
training, and the responsibilities of the homicide unit. 
The paucity of research into organizational characteristics makes 
it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the most effective 
arrangement, although Wellford, in his groundbreaking research into 
clearance rates, found that decentralized homicide units had lower 
clearance rates than centralized units.6 The next section of the chapter 

4. Wellford, C. Oversight Report on the Metropolitan Police Department Homicide Investigative Practices 
and Case Closure Rate. Committee on the Judiciary, Washington D.C., City Council, February 
27, 2001. http://www.dcwatch.com/police/010227.htm 
5. Wellford, C. Improving Homicide Clearance Rates, in National Community Policing Conference, 
July 2729, 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services. 
6. Wellford, C. and J. Cronin. Homicides: What Police Can Do to Improve Clearance Rates. Washington, 
D.C.: National Institute of Justice, April 27, 2000. 
Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness  23 


discusses inmore detail the findings of Wellfords work and compares it 
to how departments organize their homicide units. 

VARIABLES AFFECTING 
HOMICIDE CLEARANCE RATES 

Surprisingly, very little research has been conducted into how police 
policies, procedures, and tactics influence the effectiveness of homicide 
investigations. There has been speculation surrounding the factors associated 
with solving a homicide case but almost no systematic examination 
of these issues. The only study known to empirically examine police 
investigations of homicides was conducted by researchers from the University 
of Maryland, working in conjunction with the Justice Research 
and Statistics Association.7 The authors concluded that certain actions 
taken by police can have a statistically significant impact on 
solving a homicide. 

In 2000, the researchers examined the homicide clearance rates of 20 
major U.S. cities and determined that, for the most part, a given citys 
homicide clearance rate remained relatively stable over time. To examine 
this finding further, the researchers collected data on approximately 200 
homicide cases from each of four cities: two with traditionally high 
homicide clearance rates and two with traditionally low clearance rates. 
To encourage participation, the researchers agreed not to reveal the identity 
of the cities chosen for their study. They examined case characteristics, 
such as location of the homicide, characteristics of the offender and 
victim, type of weapon used, and drug involvement in the homicide. 
They also examined police practices and procedures, such as: number of 
minutes taken for the detective to arrive at the scene; number of detectives 
assigned to the case; whether a neighborhood canvas was conducted; 
whether criminal computer checks were conducted on the victim, the 
suspect and witnesses; the extent to which confidential informants were 
used; and actions taken by the first officer(s) on the scene. 

The researchers grouped these variables into three categories: 

1. initial response, 2. actions of the detectives, and 3. other police 
responses. The focus of this section of the chapter is to highlight the 
7. Ibid. 
24  Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness 


variables that are within the control of law enforcement, identified by 
researchers as having a positive effect on the clearance of a homicide. 
Along with the variables are examples of agency policies and practices 
that increase clearance rates. 

Initial Response 

The following are the variables associated with successfully clearing a 
homicide case during the initial response: 

 
The first officer on the scene immediately notifies the homicide unit, 
the medical examiners office, and the crime lab. 
 
The first officer on the scene immediately secures the area and 
attempts to locate witnesses. 
 
The detective assigned to the case arrives at the scene within 30 minutes 
of being notified. 
The quality of the initial investigationwhich includes the actions 
of the responding officer(s)is crucial to the success of the entire investigation. 
Actions taken by the first officer to arrive at the crime scene, 
such as preserving the scene and evidence, contribute to solving the 
homicide. Based on these findings, law enforcement agencies should 
make patrol officers aware of their impact on the investigation and 
ensure that they receive proper training as the first officer to respond to 
a homicide scene. Some departments rely on roll-call training to teach 
patrol officers how to better handle crime scenes, including identifying 
potential witnesses. This sort of training is critical, given that patrol officers 
are almost always the first to arrive at homicide scenes. Additionally, 
the speed with which detectives arrive at the crime scene affects their 
ability to ensure that the crime scene is processed properly and quickly. 

Actions of the Detectives 

The variables in the actions of the detectives category that were associated 
with solving a case include the following: 

 
Three or four detectives, instead of one or two, were assigned to the 
case. 
Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness  25 


 
The detectives took detailed notes describing the crime scene, including 
measurements. 
 
Detectives followed up on all information provide by witnesses. 
 
At least one detective assigned to the case attended the postmortem 
examination. 
Attention to detail by investigators is crucial. Solved homicide cases 
are more likely to have been investigated by detectives who performed 
the actions listed above. Law enforcement agencies should keep this 
information in mind when selecting and training homicide detectives. 
Another priority is to ensure that a sufficient number of detectives is 
available to follow through with all aspects of the case. 

Many departments assign a primary team of two homicide detectives 
to an investigation. Some departments have supervisors respond to the 
scene, but others, especially those with larger numbers of homicides, do 
not. Crime scene specialists, whether police officers or civilians, also 
respond to every scene. Many departments seem to have good working 
relationships between investigators and crime scene specialists. Others, 
however, indicate that coordination between investigators and forensic 
specialists could be improved through clearer delineation of roles and 
responsibilities, coupled with an emphasis on understanding the different 
perspectives each position brings to the investigation. Departments 
should have clear written policies on the collection and preservation of 
physical evidence. 

Although homicide detectives tend to be highly motivated individuals, 
the complexity of the work requires a certain level of supervisory 
review, and in some cases, outside review. In addition to direct supervision 
and oversight, some agencies rely on systems of internal and/or 
external review of homicide investigations. 

Most units come together to brainstorm either early in an investigation 
or on a weekly or monthly basis. The amount of time spent openly 
discussing the cases seems to depend on the volume of cases. One unit 
commander stated that the volume of cases in his department is just too 
high to devote time to unit meetings, so his detectives discuss cases more 
informally. Whether cases are discussed formally or informally, it is 
important that other detectives in the unit are regularly briefed and given 

26  Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness 


the opportunity to ask questions. These discussions tend to foster a team 
environment and can lead to valuable input. 

Other Police Actions 

The variables in the other police responses category that were found 
to increase the likelihood that a homicide would be solved include the 
following: 

 
A computer check using the local criminal justice information system 
was conducted on the suspect or on any guns found. 
 
A witness interviewed at the crime scene provided valuable evidence, 
such as information about circumstances of the death or the perpetrators 
motivation, an identification of the suspect or victim, or the 
whereabouts of the suspect. 
 
Witnesses, friends, acquaintances, and neighbors of the victim were 
interviewed. 
 
The medical examiner prepared a body chart of the victim and it was 
included in the case file. 
 
The attending physician and medical personnel were interviewed. 
 
Confidential informants provided information. 
The actions taken by police officers do have an impact on solving 
homicides; however, there is no guarantee that a homicide will be cleared 
if the investigating officers complete all the steps identified by the 
researchers. Every homicide case begins with a different level of solvability 
and a different probability of arrests. Some cases are easier to solve 
(for example, those in which the offender is still at the crime scene when 
officers arrive), while others are more difficult or almost impossible to 
solve (such as those where there are no witnesses, no evidence, and no 
suspect can be identified). Nevertheless, if officers follow certain procedures 
during the investigation, the likelihood of clearing the homicide 
can increase. 

A law enforcement agencys ability to gain and maintain witness 
cooperation in an investigation is also crucial to solving homicides. The 

Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness  27 


two primary facets on which a department should focus regarding witness 
cooperation are 1. improving police-community relations before 
homicides occur, and 2. protecting witnesses from intimidation. Some 
witnesses are reluctant to come forward because of a fear of retaliation; 
others are reluctant because of a distrust of the police and the criminal 
justice system. Witness cooperation is paramount to homicide investigations 
and every effort should be made by a department to foster that 
cooperation through community policing. 

Personnel Policies 

Agencies can examine a number of personnel policies and practices that 
could influence the effectiveness of homicide investigations. Some personnel 
policies may contribute to high homicide clearance rates. 

 
Homicide unit supervisors can select the best detectives from other 
units. 
 
Homicide investigators do not regularly rotate out of the unit, but are 
allowed to stay and gain expertise. 
 
Homicide detectives are given latitude to work on a case while on 
overtime. 
 
Investigators are assigned cars on a 24-hour basis, allowing them to 
respond directly to a crime scene instead of having to report to headquarters 
to sign out a car. 
Selection and Training of Investigators 

The selection and training of homicide investigators is critical to the success 
of homicide investigations. Yet the selection methods and training 
programs vary greatly by agency, and can be influenced by factors such 
as organizational tradition, labor agreements, transfer policies, and 
supervisory preference. 

A common approach to selecting homicide detectives is to handpick 
them from other investigative units, particularly robbery, narcotics, and 
gang units. Many homicides involve gang connections and/or narcotics; 
therefore, the ability to communicate with and understand the culture 
of gang members can be valuable to a homicide unit. Another approach 

28  Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness 


to selecting detectives involves a formal selection process that can 
include a combination of written exams and oral interviews. 

Once selected for assignment to a homicide unit, detectives may 
undergo specialized training. For some it may be a simple investigators 
course; for others it may be a homicide investigators course that includes 
topics such as interview and interrogation, and preparation and service 
of search warrants and wiretaps. In addition to classroom training, most 
investigators receive on-the-job training. Further, some departments 
have developed a field training program in which unit commanders 
attempt to pair seasoned investigators with more junior detectives. Agencies 
should ensure that investigators have proper training, especially in 
the areas of current case law and interview and interrogation. In-service 
or ongoing training for investigators is crucial for keeping them 
informed of changing procedures or advances in areas such as forensic 
sciences. 

Rotation Policies 

Another critical and sometimes contentious issue in homicide units is 
the duration of assignment in the unit. Many argue that allowing detectives 
to stay in the unit indefinitely allows them to gain valuable experience 
and expertise, such as becoming an adept interrogator. Rotating 
detectives out of the homicide unit can deplete investigative expertise 
and make it difficult to provide on-the-job training to new investigators. 
Others argue that a regular rotation policy benefits organizational and 
individual officers career development. As officers transfer to other 
units, investigative expertise is distributed throughout the entire department. 
Chiefs must carefully consider the overall goals for organizational 
and career development, as well as any labor agreements, when determining 
the most appropriate rotation policy for officers in homicide 
units. Proper training programs for new investigators should accompany 
mandatory rotation policies. 

Investigator Schedules and Overtime 

The schedule of a homicide investigator should be consistent with the 
case workload and the temporal distribution of homicides. In some 
departments, homicide detectives work regular business hours, Monday 
though Friday. In others, detectives work shifts to provide coverage 24 

Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness  29 


One Departments Approach 

by Robert L. Davis, Chief of Police, 
San Jose (California) Police Department 

I attribute the 90 percent case clearance rate of the San Jose Police 
Departments Homicide Unit to three main factors: 

1. 
The San Jose Police Department (SJPD) has a mandatory rotation 
policy for its officers and sergeants, which limits the time they can 
serve in a specialized assignment before returning to patrol for at 
least 1 year. In the case of the Homicide Unit, officers may serve 
for 5 years and sergeants for 6 years before being required to 
return to patrol. This policy ensures that the department is composed 
of patrol officers who are also highly trained investigators. 
Literally hundreds of SJPD patrol officers, sergeants, and commanders 
have served as detectives in a variety of investigative 
units during their careers. It is not unusual that the first responders 
at a homicide crime scene are patrol officers with a background 
in homicide investigations or crime scene processing. 
Their expertise in handling the important preliminary investigation 
in the field gives a head start to the homicide unit detectives when 
they arrive on-scene. 
Moreover, this rotation policy provides opportunities for officers 
at the beginning of their career to be trained to conduct investigations. 
The enthusiasm of the younger investigators has 
energized some of the departments senior detectives in every 
unit, and their fresh look at unsolved homicides has led to the 
clearance of some of these cases. 

2. 
Solving a homicide case frequently depends on community support 
and witness cooperation. It is extremely important that such information 
be provided within the first few hours of a case. The SJPD, 
30  Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness 


serving a city of nearly one million people, has gone to great 
lengths to establish a trusting relationship with the many different 
racial and ethnic groups that reside in the city. The department has 
solved homicide cases because residents have been willing to 
come forward and share key pieces of information. Many do so 
knowing that the department will go out of its way to accommodate 
those who want to remain anonymous. Those who are here 
illegally do not have to fear for their immigration status if they 
choose to come forward with information about a crime. The 
importance of this level of community support and mutual trust 
cannot be overstated when discussing the homicide clearance 
rate. 

3. 
It is imperative that those chosen to serve in the homicide unit 
are provided the training and networking opportunities to help 
them develop investigative skills. This includes training in interviewing 
and interrogating, as well as attending professional gatherings 
of other homicide investigators. While the training can be 
expensive, particularly the amount of time detectives need to be 
away, it is a priority for our department. Great investigations 
require great investigators, and training is always a wise investment 
in officers.  
Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness  31 


hours a day, 7 days a week. Other agencies meet the workload demands 
by rotating detectives on evening and weekend shifts. Another arrangement 
that many agencies rely on is standby or on-call status for assigning 
cases during periods of lighter workloads. 

Across the country, homicide detectives can work a tremendous 
amount of overtime, with some detectives matching or exceeding their 
regular salary. In other agencies, officers accumulate overtime in the 
form of compensatory time off to be taken in the future. In some agencies, 
the traditional arrangement has been for detectives to work the 
number of hours necessary to solve the crime. In other departments, unit 
commanders must approve detectives use of overtime. Some chiefs and 
commanders are hesitant to allow investigators to work extended hours 
because of the physical and mental toll of an investigation, which can 
lead to decreased productivity. Some departments report that defense 
attorneys are raising the issue of excessive hours and implying that it 
contributes to a decrease in investigator effectiveness. 

Closely related to overtime is the question, Who owns the case? 
That is, does one detective (or two detectives working as partners) have 
primary responsibility for investigating the crime, or does responsibility 
rest with the entire homicide unit? If responsibility rests with one investigator 
who feels a strong commitment to solve the crime, then overtime 
can be more difficult to manage when that investigator wants to work 
extended shifts. A unit or team ownership model, in which investigative 
responsibilities are distributed among several investigators, can make 
managing overtime easier. In a team ownership model, a detective ending 
a shift can pass along information about the progress made to another 
detective starting the next shift. Instead of the first detective working 
excessive hours to continue the investigation, the detective starting a shift 
can take over from where the first detective left off in the investigation. 

Departments must be aware of the competing concerns associated 
with overtime and must take the steps necessary to ensure it is used 
appropriately. 

Take-Home Cars 

Agencies provide take-home cars to investigators under a variety of 
arrangements. The primary advantage of providing officers with take-
home cars is that it ensures a quicker response time to crime scenes. 

32  Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness 


Wellford (2000) found a positive correlation between the quick arrival of 
homicide detectives to a scene and the case being solved.8 The primary 
disadvantages of take-home cars are that they require the department 
have a larger fleet of vehicles, accompanied by increased fuel and maintenance 
costs. 

The Role of Crime Analysis 

Some departments are examining how crime analysis can better assist in 
homicide investigations, both in serial murder and single murder investigations. 
Experience with problem-oriented policing and the SARA 
(Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment) model has enabled departments 
to identify distinct patterns in homicides that can lead to 
more effective investigations and strategies for preventing future homicides.
9 Crime analysts can conduct research and analysis and allow detectives 
more time for other functions, such as conducting interviews 
and following promising leads. In Austin, Texas, the police departments 
12 crime analysts are divided among nine sectors and various investigative 
units. A supervisory analyst is assigned to the Robbery and Homicide 
Unit and assists investigators with a wide variety of tasks, including: 
creating wanted person flyers, performing database searches, developing 
timelines, analyzing telephone data, crime mapping, and performing 
link analyses. The products created assist during the investigation and 
can also be very powerful during trial presentations. 

Some agencies have yet to adopt the use of crime analysis by homicide 
investigators. This is sometimes the result of staffing shortages in the 
crime analysis section, but in other agencies, detectives might be unsure 
of how to use crime analysts or may prefer to work the case alone, and 
thus are not always taking advantage of valuable resources. 

8. Wellford, C. and J. Cronin. Homicides: What Police Can Do to Improve Clearance Rates. Washington, 
D.C.: National Institute of Justice, April 27, 2000. 
9. Schmerler, Karen, et al., Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through 
Problem-Solving Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, 2006. 
Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness  33 


CONSIDERATIONS 

Based on the topics covered in this chapter, here is a checklist of questions 
a chief or homicide unit commander should consider: 

 
How does my community define effectiveness (clearance rates, number 
of annual homicides, conviction rates)? 
 
Do we need to modify the homicide units responsibilities to include 
other types of crime? 
 
Does our rotation policy enable detectives to function effectively? 
 
Are our detectives receiving the training they need to be effective? 
 
Does our selection process ensure that we choose successful detectives? 
 
What schedule should we use to increase investigator effectiveness? 
 
What can we do to enable investigators to arrive at homicide crime 
scenes as quickly as possible (e.g., take-home cars)? 
 
Do our overtime and standby pay policies facilitate effective case 
management? 
 
How can we take full advantage of the expertise of our crime analysts? 
 
Should we engage in various levels of case review? 
 
How do we ensure increased witness cooperation and strengthened 
community relationships? 
 
What other resources exist to assist my homicide unit? 
34  Chapter 3. Managing Homicide Units for Effectiveness 


Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  35 
1. Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 
1999. 
EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND TESTIMONY ARE FUNDAmental 
to the United States criminal justice system. Eyewitnesses 
are crucial to solving crimes, and sometimes eyewitness identification 
is the only evidence available to police when charging someone 
with a crime; however, eyewitness testimony is not infallible. Memories 
can be faulty or incomplete and eyewitnesses can be uncertain or confused. 
In addition, some lineup procedures can actually make it more 
difficult for eyewitnesses to identify the culprit or reject an innocent 
person. 
For almost 100 years, psychologists have studied human memory 
and its influence on eyewitness identification. Based on laboratory 
experiments and field studies, some psychologists have published recommendations 
aimed at making eyewitness identification procedures more 
reliable.And recent advancements in DNA have contributed to the exoneration 
of convicted persons, many of whom were convicted based on 
eyewitness identifications. In response to these developments, in 1999 
the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) published a research report, Eyewitness 
Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement, which included specific 
guidelines for conducting lineups and photo arrays. That publication 
included discussion of research and practical perspectives on eyewitness 
identification, and provided recommendations to promote the accuracy 
and reliability of eyewitness evidence.1 
4 
Eyewitness 
Identification

Relying on these guidelines, some law enforcement agencies have 
modified their lineup and photo array practices. Some of the modifications 
were made voluntarily, but in some jurisdictions state legislatures 
or court decrees mandated the changes. Other states continue to study 
the issue, and some are leaning toward modifying their procedures. The 
goal has always been to protect the innocent and identify the guilty. 

Yet not everyone is convinced that these new procedures are more 
effective than those that have been used for many years. A recent study 
by the State of Illinois actually found sequential lineups less effective than 
methods traditionally used by law enforcement agencies (e.g., simultaneous 
lineups).2 The Illinois study has caused some states to reconsider the 
changes they have mandated, and has created uncertainty in the minds 
of police agency administrators about which procedures they should 
adopt. 

This chapter provides guidance to agencies struggling to make sense 
of the different, and sometimes conflicting, advice circulating in criminal 
justice circles. It provides background on the research on human 
memory, presents results from recent field experiments, discusses the 
benefits and disadvantages of different procedures, and provides a series 
of questions agencies should consider when deciding whether to modify 
their eyewitness identification policies and procedures. 

DEFINITIONS 

It is important to have a common understanding of the terms used 
by law enforcement officers and psychologists who study eyewitness 
testimony. For instance, the first two termsculprit and suspectwhile 
seemingly similar, are very different. 

 
Culprit(s)The person(s) who actually committed the crime. 
 
Suspect(s)The person(s) law enforcement officers believe to be the 
culprit. 
 
FillersPeople known not to be suspects (or culprits) who populate 
the lineup. 
2. Mecklenburg, Sheri H. Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on 
Sequential Double-Blind Identification Procedures. 2006. 
36  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


 
Show-upsA procedure in which a suspect is detained, usually in a 
public place, to allow an eyewitness to determine if the suspect is the 
culprit. 
 
LineupA procedure in which a criminal suspect is placed among 
fillers to allow an eyewitness the opportunity to identify the suspect as 
the culprit. 
 
Photo arraysA procedure in which a photograph of the suspect, 
either paper or on a computer screen, is placed among photographs of 
fillers to allow an eyewitness the opportunity to identify the suspect as 
the culprit. 
 
SimultaneousA lineup or photo array procedure in which the eyewitness 
views all lineup members or photographs at the same time. 
 
SequentialA lineup or photo array procedure in which the eyewitness 
views lineup members or photographs one at a time, and is 
required to make a decision before viewing the next lineup member. 
 
Double blindA procedure used in lineups or photo arrays in which 
the law enforcement official administering the lineup or photo array 
has not been told by his colleagues in the police department which 
person is a suspect. Thus, the term double-blind means that neither 
the administrator nor the eyewitness is told which person in the lineup 
or photo array is the suspect. 
THE RESEARCH 

Human memory has long been a topic of research in the field of psychology, 
and for the past century it has been the subject of inquiry and experimentation. 
Using filmed events and staged crimes, psychologists have 
found that eyewitnesses frequently make mistakes, even when they are 
confident in their ability to recall events and identify culprits. Thinking 
of the human eye as a camera and the mind as a videotape is not a good 
analogy. Rather, people interpret what they see in many different ways, 
and their memories can be altered by external influences and can fade 
over time. 

For years, psychologists tried to persuade officials in the criminal 
justice system, especially the courts, of the problems that faulty human 

Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  37 


memory can have in identifying culprits correctly, but they made little 
progress.3 The court systems resistance to change is attributable to several 
factors, including the incremental nature of research, the conservative 
nature of the judiciary, and the topic of memory itself. Human 
memory and recall are fundamental parts of being human, and people 
have strong feelings about them. While most people agree that we might 
forget certain things, most people do not believe that we remember 
things incorrectly. But the research into human memory demonstrates 
that people do, in fact, remember things incorrectly, and that our memories 
change. These variations in memory apply to everyday events as 
well as traumatic events, such as witnessing a crime. 

Two things changed how the criminal justice system viewed this 
research. One was the significant number of death-row exonerations that 
have occurred since 1989 as a result of advances in DNA. In many of 
those exonerations, the primary evidence in the original conviction 
was eyewitness testimony. Some estimate that as many as 75 percent 
of the original convictions were the result of mistaken eyewitness 
identification.4 

The other development that changed how the criminal justice system 
viewed psychological research into eyewitness identification occurred 
earlier, in 1978, when Gary Wells made a breakthrough distinction 
between system variables (e.g., police procedures) and estimator variables 
(e.g., lighting of the crime scene).5 System variables are those things 
that can be controlled by the criminal justice system, and estimator 
variables are those things that are beyond the control of the system. 
Research up to this time had focused on both variables but had not made 
a distinction between them. This distinction began to break down an 
incredibly complex issue into more understandable parts. It enabled 
behavioral scientists and criminal justice practitioners to understand the 
implications of the research findings on using eyewitness identification 
in investigations and trials. 

3. Doyle, James M. True Witness: Cops, Courts, Science and the Battle against Misidentification. 
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 
4. Understand the Causes: Eyewitness Misidentification. The Innocence Project. http://www.innocence 
project.org 
5. Wells, Gary L. Applied Eyewitness Testimony Research: System Variables and Estimator 
Variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36 (1978): 154657. 
38  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


Estimator Variables 

Estimator variables are factors relating to human memory and are 
beyond the control or influence of the criminal justice system. These 
include the setting or lighting of the crime scene and whether the victim 
and offender are of the same or different races. Wells grouped estimator 
variables into four main categories: 

1. Characteristics of the witness, including things such as age, race, intelligence, 
and personality. 
2. Characteristics of the event, including the distinctiveness of the culprit, 
the amount of time the culprit was in view, the lighting, and the 
presence or absence of a weapon. 
3. Characteristics of the testimony, including witness accuracy, speed, 
and certainty in identifying the culprit in a lineup. 
4. The ability of others to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate 
testimony, including jurors judgments about eyewitness identification 
accuracy. 
Again, these variables are beyond the control of the criminal justice 
system. They cannot be modified or influenced. For this reason, this 
chapter will only identify them and will focus more on system variables. 

System Variables 

System variables affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and can 
be controlled by criminal justice agencies. System variables primarily 
refer to the procedures police investigators use in obtaining eyewitness 
identifications, and fall into four categories: 

1. Instructions. 
2. Lineup content. 
3. Lineup presentation method. 
4. Behavioral influence of the lineup administrator. 
Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  39 


Before discussing these variables in detail, however, it is important 
to discuss how lineups are affected by the presence or absence of the 
actual culprit. Not all lineups contain the culprit. One way this can occur 
is when law enforcement officials mistakenly believe a suspect is the 
culprit. The suspect is actually innocent, resulting in a culprit-absent 
lineup. Or in some cases, investigators may use a lineup to eliminate one 
or more suspects, none of whom is the actual culprit. Again, this could 
create a culprit-absent lineup. Irrespective of the reasons for the culprit-
absent lineup, witnesses will approach the lineup as if the culprit is 
present. 

Research has demonstrated that witnesses tend to select a person 
from the lineup who most resembles their memory of the culprit at the 
time of the crime.6 Researchers refer to this as the relative-judgment 
decision process, which can create a situation where a witness identifies 
a person from the lineup who is not the actual culprit, even though the 
witness believes his or her selection is correct. This also explains why eyewitnesses 
sometimes mistakenly pick someone out of a lineup even 
though the culprit is not present. The implications of this process will be 
discussed below. 

Instructions 

The first important system variable in eyewitness identifications is the 
pre-lineup instructions given to witnesses. Research has demonstrated 
that advising the eyewitness that the culprit might or might not be present 
reduced mistaken identifications in culprit-absent lineups, without 
compromising the ability of witnesses to select the culprit when he or she 
was present.7 

Lineup Content 

This variable concerns the makeup of the lineup, that is, the individuals 
who comprise the lineup. Seemingly a simple concept, the relationship 
among the persons in the lineup is rather complex. Research into these 
relationships has produced findings that, while intriguing, may have little 

6. Wells, Gary L. The Psychology of Lineup Identifications. The Journal of Applied Social Psychology 
14 (1984): 89103. 
7. Steblay, Nancy M. Social Influence in Eyewitness Recall: A Meta-analytic Review of Lineup 
Instruction Effects. Law and Human Behavior 21 (1997): 28398. 
40  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


practical application outside the research laboratory. The most relevant 
research, however, indicates that lineup fillers should reflect the eyewitnesss 
description of the culprit. If the witnesss description of the culprit 
is limited or sparse, or when the description of the culprit differs significantly 
from the appearance of the suspect, research indicates that the 
fillers should resemble the suspect. 

Lineup Presentation Method 

Research has examined the way in which lineups can be constructed, 
specifically the order in which eyewitnesses view participants. The 
research indicates that the sequential lineup may be more effective than 
the traditional simultaneous lineup. Sequential lineups are thought to 
reduce the effect of the relative judgment decision, because eyewitnesses 
must compare each member of the lineup (individually) to their memory 
of the culprit and not to other lineup members. The findings have 
been mixed. Several studies have shown that sequential lineups reduce 
the chances of mistaken identification in culprit-absent lineups;8 however, 
the sequential method also reduces accurate identifications in culprit-
present lineups. 

Behavioral Influence of the Lineup Administrator 

The final variable over which the criminal justice system has control is 
the person who administers the lineup. The most common approach in 
traditional lineups is for the case investigator to administer the lineup. 
This investigator, of course, knows which lineup member is the suspect 
and which ones are the fillers. Research in laboratory settings shows that 
when an administrator knows the true identity of the lineup members, 
he or she can influence, sometimes unwittingly, the eyewitness selection.9 
The same research shows that use of a blind administratorone who 

8. Steblay, Nancy M., Jennifer Dysart, Solomon Fulero, and R.C.L. Lindsay. Eyewitness Accuracy 
Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison. Law 
and Human Behavior 25 (2001): 45974. 
9. Phillips, M.R., B.D. McAuliff, M.B. Kovera, and B. Cutler. Double-Blind Photoarray Administration 
as a Safeguard Against Investigator Bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (1999): 94051; 
Wells, G.L. and A.L. Bradfield. Good, You Identified the Suspect: Feedback to Eyewitnesses 
Distorts Their Reports of the Witnessing Experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (1998): 
36076; Wells, G.L. and A.L. Bradfield. Distortions in Eyewitness Recollections: Can the Post-
identification Feedback Effect Be Moderated? Psychological Science, 10 (1999): 13844. 
Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  41 


cannot differentiate between the suspect and the fillersreduces the 
opportunities to influence the eyewitness during and after the lineup. 

Criminal Justice Initiatives to 
Improve Eyewitness Identification 

Outside of academia, several initiatives have attempted to build on or 
apply the conclusions of research psychologists. Most notably, the NIJ in 
1999 published a research report, Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law 
Enforcement. The guide was the result of several years of working group 
meetings that included representatives from law enforcement, prosecution, 
criminal defense, and the judiciary. It includes guidelines on working 
with eyewitnesses from the point of the initial call for service to 
lineups. Drawing on research findings and practical experience, the 
guide provides specific instructions for conducting simultaneous and 
sequential lineups and photo arrays. While the guide includes procedures 
for sequential methods, it stopped short of endorsing sequential methods 
as more effective than simultaneous methods. Still, this was the first 
criminal justice publication to recognize the benefits of sequential identification 
procedures. 

This document, and its companion piece on training officers to use 
the guidelines, published in 2003, coupled with post-conviction exonerations, 
prompted some jurisdictions to review their eyewitness identification 
procedures. 

CURRENT LAW ENFORCEMENT 
PRACTICES AND POLICIES 

A number of law enforcement agencies across the country have modified 
their policies on eyewitness identification as a result of the research and 
NIJ guidance. Some of the changes have been voluntary, but others were 
mandated by legislation, court decision or by the state attorney general. 
In most of the situations, however, the change in policy was in direct 
response to specific exonerations of convicted offenders within a state. 
Not every agency implemented the same changes. Many chose some 
combination of policies that drew on the academic research while also 
considering the practical implications of the policy changes on investigations. 
Some of the procedural changes have been subjected to research 

42  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


into their effectiveness, while in other situations no evaluation has 
occurred. 

This section provides an overview of some of the changes and field 
experiments in eyewitness identification policy and procedure. No attempt 
is made to evaluate or critique the actions of the agencies or the 
methods and results of the researchers. Scientific critiques of the research 
are a necessary part of eventually reaching conclusions about the most 
effective policies to pursue. At times, however, the critiques can take on 
a life of their own, making it difficult to understand the implications of 
the research. Two recent journal articles illustrate the different, and 
sometimes competing, positions people have about this research and its 
implications. One article, written by a panel of social scientists, contends 
that the recent Illinois field study has fundamental methodological flaws 
that limit its contributions to eyewitness identification knowledge.10 The 
other article, written by prosecutors, including the author of the Illinois 
study, argues that the Illinois study makes a significant contribution to 
the study of eyewitness identification and lays the groundwork for additional 
field studies.11 The articles raise important points for police administrators 
and researchers to consider as we move from the laboratory 
to the station house. 

It is safe to say that none of the field experiments replicate completely 
the conditions or protocols used in laboratories. This is to be expected 
because conditions in the laboratory are completely designed and 
controlled by researchers, whereas field experiments occur in real-life 
settings that are largely beyond the control of researchers and police 
administrators. In fact, in all of these field studies, researchers had to 
modify the research design to accommodate the challenges associated 
with homicide investigations. Usually, they explain these modifications 
and how they may have affected the study results. This section provides 
an overview of these studies and assesses how they can help administrators 
understand the complexities of eyewitness identification. 

10. Schacter, Daniel L., et al. Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field. 
Law and Human Behavior, July 2007. 
11. Mecklenburg, Sheri H., et al. The Illinois Field Study: A Significant Contribution to 
Understanding Real World Eyewitness Identification Issues. Law and Human Behavior, 
August 2007. 
Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  43 


New Jersey 

On April 18, 2001, New Jersey became the first state in the nation to officially 
adopt the NIJ recommendations. As a result of DNA-based exonerations 
in New Jersey, and drawing on the NIJ recommendations, the 
New Jersey Attorney General issued Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting 
Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures (see Appendix 
C). The guidelines advised agencies to utilize, whenever practical, someone 
other than the primary investigator assigned to the case to conduct 
both photo and live lineup identifications. In addition, the guidelines 
recommended that when possible, sequential lineups should be utilized 
for both photo and live lineup identifications. 

To assist with implementing the guidelines, the State Division of 
Criminal Justice worked with state and local agencies to train investigators. 
A 2003 survey found that law enforcement agencies of every size 
throughout the state have used the sequential identification method, 
with 84 percent of the agencies estimating that they use the sequential 
identifications in every case. Fewer agencies, however, report using the 
blind administrator, with only 62 percent reporting that they used one 
in every case. Beyond collecting numbers about the estimated use of 
the two procedures, New Jersey has not published any evaluations of the 
programs implementation or effectiveness.12 

Hennepin County 

In the fall of 2003, the Hennepin County (Minnesota) District Attorney 
chose to study eyewitness identification procedures when she heard 
about new research on this topic and potential reforms. The county 
implemented a pilot program in four city police departments ranging 
from Minneapolis (population 380,000) to New Hope (population 
21,000). The pilot project focused on felony cases in the four departments, 
and required that all lineups be administered as sequential double-
blind. This requirement even applied to cases in which the crime 
victim knew the perpetrator. Because the study required all lineups to be 
administered double-blind and sequentially, the researchers did not 

12. Mecklenburg, Sheri H. Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program 
on Sequential Double-Blind Identification Procedures. 2006. 
44  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


include comparison groups using different methods. Ultimately, the 
project involved 280 lineups over a 12-month period ending in November 
2004. 

The Hennepin County pilot project sought to answer two questions: 

1. whether the number and quality of identifications would change with 
the blind sequential lineup procedure, and 2. whether police departments 
could implement the procedures smoothly and effectively. The 
departments were asked to adhere to the following procedures:13 
 
Effective lineup construction: Lineups had to include six members 
one suspect and five fillers, with fillers chosen to match the witnesss 
description of the perpetrator. 
 
Cautionary (unbiased) instruction: The witness had to be instructed 
that the perpetrator might or might not be in the lineup. 
 
Confidence statement: A statement of witness confidence, in the witnesss 
own words, had to be recorded at the time of the identification 
and before any feedback. The procedure allowed for but did not 
demand a witness comment for each photo. 
 
Blind administration: The lineup administrator could not know who 
the suspect was, and the witness was told that the administrator did 
not know which lineup member was the suspect. 
 
Sequential presentation: Lineup photos were presented one at a time, 
with the witness making a decision about each photo before the next 
was presented. The witness was not allowed to compare photos side by 
side at any time. The full sequence was completed even if an early 
identification was made, and the witness was informed that this completion 
is required by the procedure. 
To answer the first question about whether the number and quality 
of identifications would change with the blind sequential lineup procedure, 
the project relied on 280 double-blind sequential lineups from 117 
cases, which included 206 eyewitnesses. The results of the Hennepin 

13. Klobuchar, Amy, Nancy M. Steblay, and Hilary Caliguiri. Improving Eyewitness Identifications: 
Hennepin Countys Blind Sequential Lineup Pilot Project. Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics 
Journal, April 2006. 
Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  45 


County study produced suspect identification rates comparable to 
results from similar laboratory and field tests, including fewer witnesses 
identifying fillers as the culprit. Repeated viewings of the photographs, 
however, increased the chances of witnesses selecting a filleran innocent 
person. Repeated viewings of a sequential lineup may have the same 
effects as a simultaneous lineup, introducing the relative judgment decision 
process. 

The study did not indicate that sequential double-blind lineups 
inhibited jump-out identifications, in which the witness has an immediate 
and emotional response. And, consistent with expectations, suspect 
identification rates were significantly lower for strangers than for familiar 
perpetrators. 

The answer to the second question, whether police departments 
could implement the procedures smoothly and effectively, is yes, 
despite some initial misgivings about the new protocols. The pilot project 
indicated that the double-blind sequential protocol is workable for 
police in both large and small departments without undercutting the 
ability to solve cases. (Although the agencies had some early problems 
with the protocol, these were resolved within a few months.) The study 
authors concluded that blind-sequential lineups work well, resulting in 
acceptable suspect identification rates and decreased filler identification 
rates. (In addition, anecdotal evidence suggests that eyewitnesses are 
providing stronger evidence in the courtroom.14) 

Illinois 

In 2003, the Illinois legislature passed a law requiring the state police to 
conduct a 1-year pilot study to assess the effectiveness of the sequential 
double-blind procedure in the field. The primary research question was 
whether such procedures are more effective than simultaneous procedures, 
with the measure of effectiveness being a lower number of known 
false identifications. Three Illinois police departments participated in the 
study: Chicago (population 2,896,000), Joliet (population 106,000), and 
Evanston (population 74,000). 

14. Steblay, Nancy. Observations on the Illinois Lineup Data. Minneapolis: Augsberg College, 
2006. 
46  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


The research design for this project included each department determining 
its own protocol for randomly selecting which cases would use 
the sequential double-blind procedure and which cases would use the 
simultaneous procedure. In all cases, investigators informed witnesses 
that the offender might or might not be in the lineup. In the sequential 
procedure, witnesses had to provide a yes or no answer for each suspect 
presented to them and could view photographs only twice and in the 
same order. Data collection began in late 2004 and continued for 1 year, 
resulting in more than 700 simultaneous and sequential photo arrays 
and live lineups. 

The projects final report showed that the double-blind, sequential 
identifications, when compared to simultaneous identifications, produced 
a higher rate of filler identifications and lower rate of suspect identifications. 

In addition, the study uncovered problems with implementing the 
sequential presentation and blind administrator components. The 
sequential procedure created problems for live lineups, especially in cases 
with multiple offenders. The blind administrator component was especially 
troublesome, and caused some significant delays in conducting 
identifications or in conducting identifications outside of the station-
house. Because of problems in always being able to find a blind administrator, 
this requirement was modified when there were multiple suspects. 

Wisconsin 

After examining wrongful convictions based on misidentification and 
social science research on eyewitness identification procedures, the Wisconsin 
Attorney Generals Office in September 2005 issued the Model Policy 
and Procedure for Eyewitness Identification.15 The model policy incorporates 
six major recommendations made by the scientific community: 

1. Use nonsuspect fillers chosen to minimize any suggestiveness that 
might point toward the suspect. 
2. Use a double-blind procedure, ensuring that the administrator is not 
in a position to unintentionally influence the witnesss selection. 
15. State of Wisconsin, Office of the Attorney General. Model Policy and Procedure for Eyewitness 
Identification, 2005. 
Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  47 


3. Inform eyewitnesses that the real culprit may or may not be present 
and that the administrator does not know which person is the suspect. 
4. Present the suspect and the fillers sequentially rather than simultaneously. 
Because eyewitnesses are unable to see the subjects all at once 
and are unable to know when they have seen the last subject, this procedure 
was believed to discourage relative judgment and encourage 
absolute judgments of each person presented. 
5. Assess eyewitness confidence immediately after identification. 
6. Do not use repeated photo arrays and lineups in which the same 
witness views the same suspect more than once. 
This model policy was designed to ensure that the highest quality 
of evidence is obtained from eyewitnesses, while recognizing that there 
may be several ways to implement the principles of the policy, depending 
on the resources of individual law enforcement agencies. The new 
policies and procedures in Wisconsin have not yet been subjected to 
an evaluation. 

North Carolina 

On May 19, 2005, the Criminal Justice Standards Division of the North 
Carolina Department of Justice endorsed recommendations set forth 
in the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commissions report, Recommendations 
for Eyewitness Identification.16 Although the following recommendations 
are not mandatory, they were incorporated into the 
Criminal Investigation lesson plan of the Basic Law Enforcement Training 
Course. 

 
Live lineups and photographic identifications should be presented 
sequentially rather than simultaneously. 
 
The individual conducting the photographic identification or live 
lineup should not know the identity of the actual suspect. Simultaneous 
16. North Carolina Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Standards Division. Recommendations 
for Eyewitness Identification, May 19, 2005. 
48  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


live lineups and photographic identifications may be used if a department 
does not have personnel available to conduct a double-blind 
procedure, but departments should be prepared to articulate in court 
why they used a simultaneous procedure. 

 
Witnesses should be told that the suspect may or may not be in the 
live lineup or photographic identification. 
 
A minimum of six photos should be used in photographic identification 
procedures. 
 
A minimum of six individuals should be used in live lineup procedures. 
 
Witnesses should not receive any feedback during or after the identification 
process. 
 
Witnesses should be asked to give feedback to the administrator 
in their own words regarding their level of confidence in their 
identification. 
The largest local law enforcement agency in the state, the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Police Department, modified its eyewitness identification 
procedures to incorporate double-blind sequential lineups (see Appendix 
D). The department no longer routinely asks witnesses about their 
level of confidence, however, because prosecutors prefer to address this 
issue on a case-by-case basis. In July 2007, a bill was sent to the governor 
for signature that would require the use of blind administrators and 
sequential viewing of photographs or live persons.17 

Other Agencies 

A number of other agencies across the nation have modified their eyewitness 
identification policies. The Boston Police Departments modified 
policies include sequential lineups and use of the blind administrator 
procedure whenever possible. Another department in Massachusetts, the 

17. The bill was signed on August 23, 2007: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache: 
_ZYdtNDiBNgJ:web.austin.utexas.edu/law_library/innocence/subject.cfm%3Fsubject% 
3D2+north+carolina+governor+double+blind+lineups&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us and 
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=H1625 
Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  49 


So, What Now? A Little Advice and Much 
Encouragement for Future Lineup Studies 
in the Field 

by Nancy Steblay, Ph.D., Augsburg College 

DNA exoneration cases have exposed eyewitness error as the predominant 
factor in false convictions. Almost a decade ago, this fact propelled 
joint action among law enforcement, legal professionals, and 
researchers, resulting in the 1999 publication of Eyewitness Evidence: A 
Guide for Law Enforcement by the National Institute of Justice.18 The 
guide provided science-based recommendations for effective lineups 
and alerted law enforcement to three developing ideas for future 
refinement: double-blind lineup administration, sequential lineup 
presentation format, and the use of computers for lineup delivery. 

Since then, researchers have produced a solid body of laboratory 
evidence that supports the use of double-blind sequential lineups as 
a means to secure better quality eyewitness identifications.19 While 
the scientists anticipate that law enforcement will see gains in eyewitness 
accuracy similar to those found in the laboratory, law enforcement 
seeks evidence that the recommended changes actually aid 
eyewitness investigations. Also, as lineup reforms are implemented, it 
is likely that law enforcement departments will tinker with the new 
procedures, meld their past-preferred methods with the new ones, 
and perhaps generate speculation about how their revisions affect 
eyewitness accuracy. Questions are likely, including these: 

1. How will we know if results from revised field lineups are really better? 
With a laboratory experiment, the scientist can definitively detect 

18. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Accuracy. Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement, 
Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1999. 
19. Steblay, N., J. Dysart, S. Fulero, and R.C.L. Lindsay. Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential 
and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic Comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 
25 (2001): 459473. 
50  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


correct eyewitness decisions because the perpetrators identity is 
known. In the field, however, the true status of the suspect is 
unknown. The worst-case scenariowhen a witnesss selection is 
incorrectly judged as accurateis illustrated by many DNA exoneration 
cases.20 Even the meaning of an eyewitnesss failure to choose 
the suspect is not always clear; this may indicate that the witness has 
a poor memory or that the true culprit is not in the lineup. Field data 
alone tell us very little about witness reliability, but we can get to a reasonable 
answer from here. 

2. Left with measures that offer no absolute standard of goodness, 
what should we do? 
Sound eyewitness evidence depends on the conditions under which 
the eyewitness makes the decision. Similarly, reliable study data are 
the result of sound scientific method and tested techniques of lineup 
construction and presentation.21 One requisite safeguard for all lineups 
must be highlighted: the double-blind method. 

Double-blind serves a dual role in lineup reforms. As a scientific 
tool, it provides the necessary method for objective comparisons of 
competing lineup strategies (e.g., to test sequential versus simultaneous 
formats). And in the real world of policing, the double-blind is an 
essential component for shielding the witnesss lineup decision from 
the threat or even suspicion of unintentional administrator influence.22 

20. Understanding the Causes: Witness Misidentification. The Innocence Project. http://www. 
innocence project.org 
21. See, e.g., Wells, G.L., M. Small, S. Penrod, R.S. Malpass, S.M. Fulero, and C.A.E. Brimacombe. 
Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads. Law 
and Human Behavior 22 (1998): 603647. 
22. See, e.g., Haw, R. and R.P. Fisher. Effects of Administrator-Witness Contact on Eyewitness 
Identification Accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (2004): 11061112; McQuiston-Surrett, D., 
R.S. Malpass, and C.G. Tredoux. Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups: A Review of Methods, 
Data, and Theory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 122 (2004): 147169; Phillips, M.R., B.D. 
McAuliff, M.B. Kovera, and B.L. Cutler. Double-Blind Photoarray Administration as a Safeguard 
against Investigator Bias. Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (1999): 940951; Rosenthal, R. and 
D.B. Rubin. (1978). Interpersonal Expectancy Effects: The First 345 Studies. Behavioral and Brain 
Sciences 3 (1978): 377386. 
Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  51 


3. How can future collaboration between field and laboratory studies 
promote effective lineup procedures? 
Recent field studies have underscored the need for scientists and law 
enforcement to work together to meet the requirements of rigorous 
scientific testing while also producing practical lessons for the street. 
Police investigators can provide insight about operational challenges 
and develop creative remedies. For example, when a blind administrator 
is not available, the envelope technique or laptop lineup delivery 
can be used. And more broadly, police and prosecutors can help scientists 
frame future research questions.23 

Input from scientists can be particularly helpful when a jurisdiction 
amends its guidelines. Experiments can determine whether changes 
in procedure enhance or detract from the accuracy of eyewitness decisions. 
Some jurisdictions, for example, prefer that an eyewitness be 
allowed multiple viewings of the sequential lineup. Hennepin County 
(Minnesota) allowed multiple viewings and collected data from both 
field and lab. The findings converged: Field data showed increasing 
filler selections (known errors) with lineup laps; lab data echoed this 
pattern, establishing that misidentifications increased by 26 percent 
following repeated viewing of the lineup.24 

Finally, any hope of producing useful findings will fade quickly if 
researchers, police, prosecutors, and interested observers do not have 
a specific and detailed lineup protocol or do not adhere to the one 
they have. Investigators have long-established habits for conducting 
lineups that do not always follow written departmental guidelines. It 
is important for departments to determine whether these habits are 
intentionally or inadvertently transferred to the new lineup routine. An 
effective scripting for new lineup standards must edit old practice and 

23. Klobuchar, A., N.K.M. Steblay, and H.L. Caligiuri. Improving Eyewitness Identifications: 
Hennepin Countys Blind Sequential Lineup Pilot Project, Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics 
Journal 2 (2006): 381414. 
24. Steblay, N. Double-Blind Sequential Police Lineup Procedures: Toward an Integrated Laboratory & 
Field Practice Perspective. Final Report: Grant # 2004-IJ-CX-0044, National Institute 
of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 2007. 
52  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


combine it with the new to form a clear, coherent, and scientifically 
sound package. Research findings cannot be interpreted if the terms 
of a study are not defined clearly. 

4. What are we likely to gain from future field studies? 
Convinced by the scientific lab data and motivated by the desire for 
greater confidence in eyewitness evidence, a number of jurisdictions 
have implemented double-blind sequential procedures, often with 
reported success. While some jurisdictions have received substantial 
attention and publicity, others have initiated reforms under the radar, 
without much fanfare and encountering little difficulty.25 Smooth 
translation of lineup reforms to the field has not been the case for all 
departments, however, and concerns have been voiced regarding 
implementation problems and outcome effectiveness.26 In the short 
run, additional field studies will help to immediately address these 
specific concerns. 

But there is also the larger and very important objective: That we 
secure more accurate memory evidence from eyewitnesses. Scientists 
and the legal systems practitioners must continue to work together to 
bring genuine improvements into practice.  

25. Ibid. 
26. Mecklenburg, S. Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on 
Sequential Double-blind Identification Procedures. 2006. www.chicagopolice.org/IL%20Pilot% 
20on%20Eyewitness%20ID.pdf. 
Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  53 


Northampton Police Department, uses the double-blind sequential procedure. 
In Santa Clara County, California, the District Attorneys Office 
issued a protocol strongly recommending the use of double-blind 
sequential procedures. The Virginia State Crime Commission, a legislative 
advisory body, recommended double-blind sequential identification 
procedures, and new and veteran officers were slated to receive training 
in these procedures. 

AGENCY CONSIDERATIONS FOR 
EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION 

The intent of this chapter was to provide an overview of the complex 
issue of eyewitness identification. The topic of human memory and 
recall, by itself, is exceedingly complex, and many questions about how 
humans store and recall memories remain unanswered. Psychological 
research studies, conducted under carefully designed and controlled protocols, 
have demonstrated that eyewitness identification is more effective 
under specific conditions. The challenge is to determine how to replicate 
those conditions when moving from the laboratory to the station house. 

A number of agencies have attempted to do just that. Some have 
implemented double-blind sequential procedures, while others have 
chosen to experiment with the procedures before making any permanent 
changes. The agencies that have implemented changes indicate that the 
revised procedures are feasible. Modifying procedures is not without 
challenges, but the obstacles have been overcome by agencies large and 
small. Probably one of the biggest challenges is the use of a blind administrator 
to run the lineups. The first hurdle to overcome is the reluctance 
of investigators to allow someone else to run the lineup during a crucial 
part of the investigation. The notion of a blind administrator contains an 
implicit accusation that police officers harbor bias, lack integrity, or simply 
cannot be trusted. A second concern is whether a department has the 
personnel resources to have a blind administrator available around the 
clock and in different locations within a jurisdiction. That was a serious 
problem in the Illinois field study. 

Several agencies have conducted field tests to evaluate different 
lineup procedures. These field tests are exceedingly complicated. Conducting 
psychological research in a laboratory setting is arduous; doing 
it in a police agency under real-life conditions adds several layers of 

54  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


complexity. Duplicating the protocols used in the laboratory is almost 
impossible; consequently, the study results do not always have the validity 
and reliability that researchers prefer. In examining the results of 
these field tests it is important to realize that each test is unique. Tests ask 
different research questions and are conducted in different settings, so 
naturally they will produce different results. And while researchers will 
critique the studies using one set of criteria, police administrators will 
want to rely on another set of criteria to determine if their agency should 
adopt new eyewitness identification procedures. The bottom line is that 
the research in the laboratory and the station house must continue, so 
that we can more fully understand eyewitness identification and its role 
in criminal investigations. 

Despite the complexity of these issues, consensus is beginning to 
emerge among researchers and police administrators in several areas. Of 
course, not every practitioner or researcher unanimously agrees with 
each point. Based on research and practice, law enforcement agencies 
should examine their current policies and compare them to the following 
procedures to determine if they are appropriate for their agencies: 

 
InstructionsAll eyewitnesses should be told that the culprit may or 
may not be present in the lineup. 
 
Double blindLineups should be administered by law enforcement 
personnel who do not know the identity of the culprit. Although 
implementing double-blind lineups may create operational challenges, 
many departments have overcome those challenges. 
 
One suspect per lineupA lineup should include only one suspect. 
 
Number of lineup membersAt least six photographs should be 
used in any photo array, and six persons in any live lineup. 
 
SequentialTo the extent possible, photographs and live lineup 
members should be presented sequentially to eyewitnesses. 
 
Number of viewingsEyewitnesses should be limited to no more 
than two cycles, or laps, when viewing photographs; and the photographs 
should be presented in the same order. The lineup administrator 
should record the results of each lap. 
Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  55 


Making Improvements to 
Eyewitness Identification Now 

by Sheri H. Mecklenburg, former General Counsel to the 
Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, and 
Coordinator of the Illinois Pilot Program on Eyewitness Identification 

In 2006, Illinois released its findings on the first field study of sequential, 
double-blind lineups.27 The study did not support the claims that 
the sequential, double-blind procedure was superior to the traditional 
lineup procedure.28 Nor did the study prove that the sequential, double-
blind method was inferior to the traditional lineup procedure. Nevertheless, 
the Illinois study should not be considered conclusive 
because it is only one study and, further, the data require careful analysis 
of issues inherent in any field data, as well as comparison with 
other reliable field data. The Illinois study proved that there is still 
much work to be done before the science underlying sequential, double-
blind lineups meets the standard of proof that we should 
demand of any science in this post-DNA world.29 The resulting 
uniform call for additional field studies recognizes the need for more 
work in this area. 

As we struggle with the lessons learned from DNA exonerations 
and attempt to ensure against future injustices, it is regrettable that 
so much of the discussion on eyewitness identification has focused 
on whether the lineup is presented sequentially or simultaneously, 

27. Mecklenburg, S. Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on 
Sequential Double-blind Identification Procedures. 2006. www.chicagopolice.org/IL%20Pilot% 
20on%20Eyewitness%20ID.pdf. 
28. The data showed a 9.2 percent rate of filler identifications in sequential, double-blind lineups, 
compared to a 2.8 percent rate of filler identifications in the traditional lineups. Id. 
29. Haddad, James P. et al. Criminal Procedure Cases and Comments, Sixth Edition (7th Edition 
forthcoming); Inbau, Fred E. Criminal Law and Its Administration, Sixth Edition, Chapter 11 B.; See 
also Best Police Lineup Format Not Yet IDd, Chicago Tribune, July 30, 2007; Questions Raised 
Over New Trend in Police Lineups, The New York Times, April 19, 2006. 
56  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


double-blind or not, when this issue simply does not address the 
eyewitness identification issues raised by many of the DNA 
exonerations. Many of the DNA exonerations involving mistaken eyewitness 
identification revealed issues of poor training, poor supervision, 
poor police work, and, sometimes, misconduct, most of which 
began long before, and continued long after, the lineup occurred. The 
facts that led to many of the erroneous convictions would not prompt 
a police chief to ponder a policy of sequential, double-blind lineups. 
Rather, the facts would cause a police chief to examine standards, 
training, and supervision when dealing with eyewitnesses. This does 
not mean that the method of presenting the lineup should not be 
explored, but the focus on the sequential, double-blind lineup has 
come at the cost of diverting attention from real improvements in 
eyewitness identification. 

Many police departments do not have comprehensive, written 
standards on how to conduct eyewitness identifications. Many police 
departments do not have uniform instructions to give to an eyewitness 
viewing a lineup. Even fewer require that written instructions 
be provided to eyewitnesses viewing a lineup, despite the fact that 
written instructions protect both the integrity of the identification and 
the officers against false claims of influence. Many lineup reports 
are incomplete and ambiguous, the fault of both the submitting investigator 
and the approving supervisors. 

Many seasoned investigators have never had formal training on 
eyewitness identification. They have never had training on false identifications, 
have never heard about studies on eyewitness identification, 
and are unaware of many of the eyewitness issues raised by the 
DNA exonerations. Most investigators have learned about eyewitness 
identification from other officers in the station, repeating both the 
good and the bad practices of their predecessors, as well as their predecessors 
predecessors. For those who do receive training, it is often 
limited to the basics of how to assemble a lineup. Legislatures across 
the country are being urged to adopt the sequential, double-blind 

Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  57 


method of lineups as a matter of law; but, unfortunately, they are not 
being urged to fund meaningful training on eyewitness identification 
for all local law enforcement. 

The Illinois Pilot Program has prompted law enforcement officials 
and social scientists to call for more field studies on the sequential, 
double-blind method, before adopting the method as policy. But law 
enforcement should not stand by idly for years, waiting for adequate 
field studies. Law enforcement, both internally and through joint task 
forces, should be setting standards and developing meaningful training 
for eyewitness identification. Law enforcement is an entity committed 
only to identifying the actual offender, rather than to proving or 
disproving any scientific theory.30 This unique role demands that law 
enforcement lead the way now in addressing the known issues underlying 
false eyewitness identifications.  

30. See Zagel, J. Getting to Truth Before It Falls Into the Hands of the Lawyers: Pursuing Accuracy 
in Criminal Cases. Loyola Public Interest Law Reporter, 11:2, p. 17 et. seq. (Summer 2006). 
58  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


 
Witness statementsWitnesses should not be coached in any manner, 
and any statements should be in the witnesses own words. 
 
Lineup reportsAgencies should develop and use more complete 
lineup reports. Many agencies simply use identification or no identification 
in their reports. Agencies should require more specificity 
about the selection (e.g., suspect, filler, no choice, and all members 
excluded), as well as level of eyewitness confidence and speed with 
which the identification was made, if applicable. 
 
TrainingInvestigators need training in, and written instructions 
for, carrying out new procedures. 
 
ComputersAgencies should consider using computers to arrange 
photo arrays, if possible. 
Agency Considerations 

For those agencies contemplating changes in policies and procedures, 
some questions to ponder include the following: 

 
Should my agency implement sequential identification procedures? 
 
What does the jurisdictions prosecutor think about the police 
procedures? 
 
Should my agency implement a double-blind procedure? 
 
What are the challenges to doing eyewitness identifications correctly? 
 
Should we implement new procedures in only a portion of the department 
to determine their effectiveness before going departmentwide? 
 
Can we link with university professors and researchers to help us 
design and evaluate any new procedures? 
 
When should we use photographs, and when should we use live 
lineups? 
 
How many photos or people should we use? 
 
How should we document witness recollections? 
Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification  59 


 
What facilities and equipment do we need? 
 
What training do detectives need in any new procedures? 
 
Can we use multiple procedures in the agency? 
 
Can computer imaging or technology help? 
CONCLUSION 

The psychological research on human memory is compelling. The 
research on eyewitness identification is persuasive, but the methods and 
results are not always applicable when transferred from the laboratory to 
the station house. Although consensus exists in some areas, it does not 
exist in every area. The recent findings from the Illinois Pilot Study raise 
important questions about double-blind, sequential identifications. The 
Illinois study, along with all others, should be considered in light of all 
available evidence. Clearly, additional research is needed to help law 
enforcement agencies determine the most effective practices, and that 
research must be a collaborative effort between practitioners and 
researchers. In the meantime, agencies considering making changes to 
their eyewitness identification procedures should review the questions 
outlined above and, whenever possible, confer with agencies that have 
experience using various procedures. 

60  Chapter 4. Eyewitness Identification 


Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations  61 
1. Sullivan, T. Police Experiences with Recording Custodial Interrogations. Northwestern University 
School of Law, Center on Wrongful Convictions. Special Report, 2004. 
Consider the immeasurable value of giving the 
eventual jury the opportunity to hear, if not see, 
the defendant before he has thought to temper his 
attitude, clean up his language, and otherwise 
soften his commonly offensive physical appearance, 
and you begin to appreciate the tremendous 
value of a taped interview.1 
ANONYMOUS PROSECUTOR, 
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 
POLICE DEPARTMENTS OFTEN FACE INTERNAL CHALLENGES 
when instituting a significant change in the way they operate. 
Many departments that have adopted videotaped interrogations 
are, for the most part, satisfied with the results. Further, many would 
not be inclined to revert to traditional methods and stop videotaping 
interrogations, given the benefits derived from the practice. While 
not every investigator or manager is a proponent of videotaped interrogations, 
many seasoned investigators from departments across the country 
who have experience with videotaping interrogations prefer this 
method. 
Videotaping interrogations has become more viable as a result of 
four influences: 1. prosecutors find the recordings incredibly powerful, 
and defense attorneys are less likely to question the practices of the police, 
5 
Videotaped 
Interrogations

2. affordable technological advancements, 3. a realization that video monitoring 
is an accepted practice in many agencies, and 4. the desire in law 
enforcement to strengthen the evidence to convict offenders. 
The prevalence of videotaping and digital technology in all of society 
has permeated law enforcement, as well. Many departments have shifted 
from VHS storage archives to completely digital recording and storage 
methods. The equipment is more affordable than it was in the past and 
more feasible for departments on a minimal budget. Further, video 
recording technology has had a recent surge in deployment for the detection 
and identification of criminal activity in many cities throughout the 
country. Many police cars today are outfitted with cameras to capture 
actions related to police stops, and as agencies have become comfortable 
with that type of recording, they have more easily accepted video recording 
of interviews and interrogations. 

This chapter discusses current trends in videotape interrogations, 
including the benefits of recording and the challenges it presents, and 
identifies various factors law enforcement departments can consider 
regarding videotape protocols. 

IN PRACTICE: THE VIDEOTAPE 

RECORDING OF INTERROGATIONS 
What do we know about current videotaping practices? 

Before the 1980s, most confessions were written or sometimes audio-
taped. These methods, especially the written confessions, made it difficult 
for judges and juries to decide whether a statement was voluntary 
because of the inability to see how it was obtained. During the 1980s, 
some law enforcement agencies began videotaping interrogations so that 
trial participants could see exactly what occurred. In 1990 departments 
were surveyed about their videotape practices2 and the study concluded 
that one-third of law enforcement agencies serving populations of more 
than 50,000 were videotaping some portion of interrogations. 

2. Geller, W. Videotaping Interrogations and Confessions. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 
Research in Brief. NCJ #139962, 1993; Geller, W. Police Videotaping of Suspect Interrogations 
and Confessions: A Preliminary Examination of the Issues and Practices. Washington, D.C.: Police 
Executive Research Forum, 1993. 
62  Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations 


Currently, some research indicates more than half of the state and 
local agencies nationwide videotape at least some interrogations.3 Some 
federal agencies rely on videotaped interrogations, as well. Several departments 
are being mandated to videotape interrogations. Unlike lineup 
protocol discussions, videotaping mandates are not a result of academic 
research identifying empirical benefits to videotaping. On the contrary, a 
lack of quantitative research in this area makes it difficult to support or 
refute the outcomes associated with videotaping interrogations. 

For example, Geller, in a study of attitudes and opinions about 
videotape interrogations, reported that departments claim videotaped 
interrogations led to more guilty pleas, longer sentences, and more convictions.
4 Another effort to study videotaping was conducted in conjunction 
with the Center on Wrongful Convictions.5 The study included 
surveys and interviews with more than 400 departments about videotaping 
legislation and protocols. This descriptive study helps explain the 
prevalence of videotaping and officer attitudes toward it, but does not 
evaluate whether recording produces higher conviction rates. 

Why are departments videotaping? 

Several states, including California, Illinois, Maine, and New Mexico, 
have been mandated by state or local legislation to videotape interrogations. 
In 2005, the District of Columbia was also mandated to do so. 
Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and 
Wisconsin have been mandated to videotape by State Supreme Court 
rulings. During the 20052006 legislative session, 44 bills were introduced 
in the states relating to electronic recording of interrogations. The 
strong interest among state legislators in electronic recording of interrogations 
can be generally attributed to a handful of committed groups 
working to uncover wrongful criminal convictions and bring them to the 
forefront of legislative agendas. There doesnt appear to be any one event 

3. Moorman, J. Confessions of a Dangerous Kind. Perspectives. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University, 
2005. 
4. Geller, W. Videotaping Interrogations and Confessions. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of 
Justice, Research in Brief. NCJ #139962, 1993. 
5. Sullivan, T. Police Experiences with Recording Custodial Interrogations. Northwestern University 
School of Law, Center on Wrongful Convictions. Special Report, 2004. 
Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations  63 


or case that has ignited the attention, but rather a national call to address 
the interrogation process which often leads to evidence for or against a 
conviction.6 

The majority of mandates have resulted from a wrongful conviction 
case or string of cases or the desire to follow the lead of other jurisdictions 
that have adopted videotaping and cite promising results, or both. 
Table 2 highlights a number of legislative actions, to date, that involve 
recording of interrogations. Note that most require only electronic 
recording, not necessarily video recording. Table 3 identifies case law, 

Table 2. Recent State Laws on Videotaped Interrogation7 

State Legislation  Passed Year 
District of 
Columbia 
Electronic Recording Procedures Act  Requires 
electronic recording of custodial interrogation 
relating to crimes of violence 
2004 
Illinois Recorded Statements Act & Amendment to Require 
Recorded Interrogations in DUI Related Deaths  
Requires electronic recording of custodial interro-
gations of juveniles, homicide suspects, and per-
sons suspected of DUI-related deaths 
2005 
Maine An Act to Require the Videotaping of Police Interroga-
tions  Requires videotaping of all custodial exam-
inations concerning the commission of a crime 
2004 
New 
Mexico 
An Act Relating to Law Enforcement  Requires 
electronic recording of custodial interrogations 
in felony cases 
2005 
Texas Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 38.22  Requires 
electronic recording of all custodial statements 
2001 
Wisconsin AB 648  Requires electronic recording of custodial 
interrogations of adults in felony cases and juveniles 
2005 
6. Personal Communication with Scott Ehlers, Director of State Legislative Affairs, National 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, January 22, 2007. 
7. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. www.nacdl.org 
64  Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations 


briefs, and motions that have affected law enforcement practices on 
videotape interrogations. 

Other departments have voluntarily opted to videotape interrogations 
because of the perceived benefit. For example, the Detroit Police 
Department recently began videotaping all interrogations where the suspect 
is facing the possibility of a life sentence. This decision was the result 

Table 3. Case Law, Briefs and Motions8 

State Case Law, Briefs, and Motions Year 
Alaska Stephan v. State  The Alaska Supreme Court 
held that an unexcused failure to record custodial 
interrogations violated the suspects right to due 
process under the state constitution. Custodial 
interviews must be electronically recorded. 
1985 
Massachusetts Commonwealth v. DiGiambiattista  The Massa-
chusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that when 
an interrogation is not at least audiotaped, a jury 
instruction may be requested. 
2004 
Minnesota State v. Scales  The Minnesota Supreme Court 
held that custodial interrogations must be 
recorded. 
1994 
New 
Hampshire 
State v. Barnett  The New Hampshire Supreme 
Court held that if a recorded final statement is 
offered into evidence, the recording is admissible 
only if the entire post-Miranda interrogation is 
recorded. 
2001 
New Jersey Rule 3:17: Electronic Recordation  Court rule 
requiring recordings of custodial interrogations, 
and jury instructions to be given in the absence 
of a recorded statement. 
2005 
Wisconsin State v. Jerrell  The Wisconsin Supreme Court 
required that all custodial interrogations of juve-
niles be electronically recorded. 
2005 
8. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. www.nacdl.org 
Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations  65 


of the wrongful conviction of Eddie Joe Lloyd, who spent 17 years in 
prison for the rape and murder of Michelle Jackson, a 16-year-old. Lloyd 
had a psychiatric history and confessed to the homicide during his interrogation. 
He was later exonerated of the crime by DNA analysis. The 
Lloyd family settlement with the city, county and state is reportedly more 
than $4 million.9 

The Denver Police Department began videotaping interviews in 
1983 to foster a greater level of transparency in its investigative interviewing 
methods in officer-involved shooting cases. At that time, the 
department had only one videotape interview room. Over time, because 
of the positive experiences the department had with the practice, other 
units, including homicide, gained interest in using the videotaping 
rooms for their investigations. The number of videotape interview 
rooms eventually increased to 25 throughout the city. The number of 
videotaped interviews has increased tenfold since 1983 (see Figure 4). 
Denver now has the ability to videotape suspect, victim, and witness 
interviews in all crime types. 

Figure 4. Graph Showing Number of Denver Police Department 
Videotaped Interviews from 1983 to 2006

Upward Trend Reported from 1983 to 2006 

9. Wrongful Conviction Prompts Detroit Police to Videotape Certain Interrogations. The New 
York Times, April 11, 2006, A14. 
10. Priest, Jonathyn W. (Lieutenant, Denver Police Department). Multiple personal interviews, 
June 2005. 
66  Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations 


VIDEOTAPED INTERROGATION PROCEDURES 
What is being videotaped? 

Departments videotape different segments of interrogations. Some 
videotape only the confession or final statement. Others videotape the 
interrogation but not the pre-interview. Others videotape the entire 
interrogation, from the reading of the Miranda rights to the end of the 
interview. The criteria regarding how much to videotape are established 
at the departmental level or through legislation. The decisions can be 
based on 1. identifying what is sufficient to succeed in court or is acceptable 
to the prosecutors office, 2. a desire not to share too much of the 
departments investigative techniques with juries, and/or 3. consent 
requirements (dual-party consent states require the suspect to consent to 
the videotape proceedings). 

Who is being videotaped? 

Who is videotaped is another factor that varies by agency. The sensitive 
nature of some charges, coupled with the possibility of a life prison term 
or a death sentence, will often cause a department to videotape to provide 
transparency and a more detailed understanding to the jury of what 
transpired, and dispel the possibility that illegitimate tactics secured the 
confession or interrogation findings, which could contribute to a wrongful 
conviction. Some departments videotape only felony cases. Other 
departments, such as Detroit, base the decision on the sentence associated 
with the charge. If the suspect is facing a possibility of a life sentence, 
the department will videotape. Departments often videotape interviews 
or interrogations in cases involving sex crimes or child sex crimes. For 
example, the FBIs Phoenix Field Office videotapes all victim and witness 
statements in sexual assault cases involving children in Indian country. 
Some departments automatically videotape interrogations of juveniles 
and non-English-speaking suspects. 

Some departments also videotape witness statements and are also 
more likely to videotape the entire interrogation of the suspect. These 
videotapes can be used in cases where the witness is unable to take the 
stand in court. Further, videotaped interviews and statements enable 
judges, defense attorneys, and juries to observe the behavior of the 

Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations  67 


The Miranda Warning 
Videotaping Connection 

by Lt. Jonathyn Priest, Denver Police Department 

On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an 
opinion in Miranda v. Arizona. That decision resulted in what we in law 
enforcement call the Miranda advisement. At the time, police officers 
believed that the result of Miranda would be an end to obtaining confessions 
from suspects. But that did not happen; every day suspects 
continue to confess to crimes after being read their Miranda rights. 
When I became a police officer in 1980, I knew what Miranda was and 
that suspects always had to be read their rights. Miranda has never 
been a problem for me. 

Many in law enforcement today view video interviewing the same 
way. These changes are seen as threats, and some may think, We will 
no longer get what we did before this recording came in. I have experienced 
interviewing pre- and post-video and find that the video interview 
is, by far, more powerful. Law enforcement officials I have had the 
opportunity to meet agree: Once they begin to use this new video 
technology, they would never consider going backward. The officers of 
today see this video technology and never question what a suspect 
might do on camera. Law enforcement is an ever-changing profession 
that requires our ability to adapt and change to continue our pursuit 
of justice.  

68  Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations 


witness and interactions between the witness and the detective, and to 
gain a more thorough understanding of the case than they would from a 
written statement. 

BENEFITS OF VIDEOTAPING 
INTERROGATIONS 

Departments that videotape interrogations identify a host of benefits in 
using this method. In addition, prosecutors and courts benefit from 
videotaped interrogations. The most often-cited strengths of videotaping 
interrogations are the following: 

1. Provides transparency to the interview process. Viewers can observe 
the interaction between investigator(s) and suspects and/or witnesses. 
2. Allows the detective greater focus on the suspect and/or witness. 
3. Decreases cross-examination of detectives in court, and defense arguments 
that a suspect was coerced. 
4. Allows for direct observation of suspect intent and statements. 
5. Allows for lifetime review of the exact testimony for case review and 
interrogation training. 
Transparency 

Community policing has demonstrated the importance of promoting 
trust and stability in relationships between community members and 
law enforcement representatives. In recent years, many departments have 
become more forthright about their policies, procedures, and decisions, 
including the interview and interrogation process. By videotaping, these 
departments have enjoyed the benefit of showing the community 
how they conduct interrogations. Geller (1993)11 found that videotaped 
interrogations also helped to encourage fair treatment of suspects and 
respect for their civil rights, and reduced stress on officers who, in the 

11. Geller, W. Videotaping Interrogations and Confessions. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 
Research in Brief. NCJ #139962, 1993; Geller, W. Police Videotaping of Suspect Interrogations 
and Confessions: A Preliminary Examination of the Issues and Practices. Washington, D.C.: Police 
Executive Research Forum, 1993. 
Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations  69 


past, might have had to defend their tactics and behaviors. This transparency 
has benefits for investigators and officers, who now have a measure 
of protection against allegations of coercion by those being 
interviewed. By demystifying the interview process, departments 
demonstrate that they have nothing to hide, which can foster greater 
community trust. 

Focus 

Videotaping has improved interview and interrogation procedures. 
When detectives spend too much energy on taking notes during an interview 
or interrogation, it can be distracting for the subject, and can 
impede the dialogue. When a recording device is used, detectives can better 
focus on observing and interacting with the suspect and/or witness. 
At the same time, subjects anxiety may be lessened because they are not 
focused on, or concerned about, the detectives note-taking. 

Courtroom Benefits 

The general consensus among agencies is that videotaped interrogations 
help in courtroom proceedings. Lt. Jonathyn W. Priest, commander of 
the Denver Police Departments Major Crimes Section, states that the 
mere existence of the videotaped confession causes defense attorneys to 
plead cases more often.12 The ability to show a judge, defense attorney, 
and jury the suspect being interrogated can prevent defense allegations 
of coercion, illegitimate handling of the suspect, or inadmissibility of a 
confession as a result of Miranda rights not being read. The videotape 
allows the judge, defense attorney, and jury to hear the suspects own 
words, view his or her mannerisms, and observe the interaction between 
the suspect and detective. The traditional method of the detective going 
on the stand to give a play-by-play of the interrogation and engaging in 
a battle of he said, she said is virtually eliminated when interrogations 
are videotaped. That interplay is now available for the court to see and 
hear, and can reduce investigator time and cross-examination of the 
detective in court. 

12. Priest, Jonathyn W. Homicide Investigations Conference. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive 
Research Forum, 2006. 
70  Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations 


Direct Observation 

Departments that videotape interrogations highlight the power it has on 
juries to be able to see the interview for themselves. There have been 
eye-opening cases of the videotape capturing much more than just the 
detective-suspect interaction. Some suspects have incriminated themselves 
and clearly contradicted their own defense while on videotape in 
custodial settings. Examples include the following: 

 
In Hennepin County, Minnesota, a suspect claimed that his blindness 
prohibited him from being able to commit the offense. While taping, 
the detectives left the room and the suspect proceeded to pick up the 
newspaper and read it, not knowing or forgetting that the videotape 
was recording his actions. 
 
In a case from the Kankakee County, Illinois, Sheriff s Department, a 
man repeatedly denied his involvement in a rape and stabbing which 
left a woman dead, yet he sang, Ding, dong, the witch is dead when 
detectives left the room and he forgot that the camera was rolling. 
Although not a clear admission of guilt, this was still an interesting 
development for the jury to see in evaluating his behavior and overall 
attitude. 
 
One suspect changed his story five times while acting the crime out, 
aiding the prosecution in rendering his testimony as less than truthful. 
 
A youths father accompanied him in the interrogation room. He 
asked his son if there were any witnesses to the crime. His son 
responded, No, we killed them all. 
Direct observation eliminates concern about the accuracy of 
unrecorded interview statements. The accuracy of videotaped interviews 
and interrogations is superior to notes and secondhand recall. These 
older methods, and even an audio recording, can be error-prone and 
open to interpretation. The videotape removes the element of doubt. 
Jurors not only hear what suspects say, they see them saying it. The 
videotaped interview accurately documents the suspects description of 
events, admissions, denials, and/or confession. The videotape also prevents 
suspects and witnesses from changing statements or denying they 
made statements at a later date. 

Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations  71 


Further, direct observation offers the judge and jury a greater ability 
to evaluate a suspects intent. Intent is clearer in a video recording than 
it is in other types of recall and audio recording. Hearing the inflection 
in the suspects voice, his certainty in what he is saying, and his repeated 
admissions or rejections of information can help jurors evaluate his 
credibility. The suspects physical mannerisms and emotional state while 
speaking are essential to help a jury interpret the validity of a persons 
statements. Jurors are more likely to believe a confession if they see corroborating 
information presented and do not see coercive tactics. 

Review and Training 

An advantage of video recording is that detectives can view them repeatedly 
to identify details they may have missed initially. Supervisors can 
review the videotapes for quality control and training practices. And 
even after the trial is over, a videotape may be useful in the appeals 
process. Appeals no longer hinge on the detectives recall and notes; the 
power of the testimony remains in each repeated viewing. Videotapes 
can also be powerful training tools for new investigators and for preserving 
the institutional knowledge of seasoned homicide detectives. 

CONCERNS ABOUT VIDEOTAPING 
INTERROGATIONS 

Not all police departments share this support for videotaping and are 
concerned that its use by other departments will force them to adopt the 
technology. Some departments have such strong concerns about its benefits 
that they do not videotape any portion of interviews or interrogations. 
Others believe that videotaping is beneficial only in certain 
circumstances, such as a suspects final statement or confession. 

Given that no empirical evidence supports the premise that videotaping 
helps close cases and secure convictions, departments are reluctant 
to change their investigative procedures. The most frequently 
mentioned concerns with videotaping include the following: 

1. Reluctance to reveal investigative tactics, including deceiving suspects, 
which may create negative perception among community members. 
72  Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations 


One Departments Approach to Videotaping: 
Denver Police Department 

The Denver Police Department has a Standard Operating Procedure 
and Training Bulletin13 for videotaping interrogations and using the 
video rooms (see Appendix E). The Training Bulletin describes factors 
that detectives can capture in a recording, including clothing worn 
by the suspect, demeanor and actions, injuries (or lack of injuries), 
body language, eye movement and other nonverbal gestures, and mental 
and physical condition. The video interrogation room is simple 
in appearance. It allows for complete videotaping of the interrogation, 
as well as recording of all activity displayed on what is called a 
SMART Board. This interactive device allows detectives to display 
crime scene photographs, drawings, wound diagrams, photo lineups, 
video streams, vehicle photographs, and much more. The images and 
edits are saved 
electronically and 
captured on videotape. 
The room also 
allows for instant 
communication between 
detectives 
and commanders 
outside of the video 
room via the computer 
that sits in 
front of the detective 
conducting the 
interrogation (see 
Figure 5).  

Figure 5. Denver Police Department, 
Video Interview Room #1 Image of room with computer monitor and TV screen

13. Priest, Jonathyn W. Video Interview Facility, Video Interview Techniques, Training Bulletin. 
Denver Police Department, Crimes Against Persons Bureau, 2006. 
Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations  73 


2. A belief that video recording decreases suspect cooperation. 
3. Questions of legality and consent issues. 
4. Concerns about costs. 
5. A belief that video recording might lead departments to become overly 
dependent on technology. 
Erosion of Public Trust 

Concern about public scrutiny of police tactics is perhaps the most often 
cited deterrent to videotaping. Departments assert that videotaping will 
give juries and the public the opportunity to scrutinize the investigative 
process, the legitimate tactics that are allowable within interrogation 
environments, and the professional integrity of an individual detective 
or the entire department. 

Departments that have adopted videotaping agree that these are 
legitimate concerns that need to be considered carefully. An official from 
one department said, Its hard to have a jury trust a detective who has 
just taken an oath to tell the truth, yet see him lying on the videotape in 
an attempt to trick or confuse. An official from another department said 
that its prosecutors discourage lying on videotape because of the negative 
consequences it can have on a jury. Aside from lying, officials fear 
that other legitimate tactics to trick or confuse a suspect, when captured 
on videotape, will convey a negative image of investigators and the 
department. Further, police officials fear that some detectives, regardless 
of their effectiveness, may not make a positive impression on the video 
and might harm the citizens perception of the department. 

Officials from some departments that do not videotape argue that 
videotaping interrogations should not be used as a means to build community 
trust. They believe that the interrogation of suspects is too 
important to be compromised by videotaping, especially without scientific 
evidence demonstrating its benefits. They say that other efforts, such 
as strong community policing initiatives, should be used to build community 
trust in the department. 

Some departments are reluctant to videotape because they believe 
there will always be skeptics on a jury who will ask, But what happened 
before the videotape began recording? Officials in these departments 

74  Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations 


point out that, if the skeptics have their way, officers will eventually 
have to videotape every second of every encounter with suspects. Rather 
than be forced into such an untenable position, they choose not to use 
videotaping. 

Decreased Cooperation 

Another concern that departments cite is the possibility that suspects 
will clam up if they know they are being videotaped. They reject claims 
that suspects talk freely on videotape; rather, they say, the knowledge that 
one is being videotaped causes people to be reticent and guarded in their 
comments. 

Consent 

Gaining consent from suspects or witnesses can be an obstacle to videotaping. 
States typically require single- or dual-party consent to videotaping. 
In a single-party consent state, investigators do not have to alert the 
suspect that he is being videotaped, although many do so nevertheless. 
In a dual-party consent state, a suspect can refuse to be videotaped. 

Some prosecutors are concerned that a reasonable expectation of 
privacy, a federal constitutional doctrine, bars the videotaping of interrogations 
without consent. Geller (1993), however, points out that the 
federal doctrine does not pertain to station house interrogations. State 
and local laws may prohibit videotaping though, without dual-party 
consent, and departments are encouraged to discuss these concerns with 
their local prosecutors before implementing videotaping procedures. 

Cost 

Departments have a variety of questions and concerns about the sophistication 
of the equipment, and how extensively it must be installed in 
interview rooms or any other facilities where suspects might be questioned 
or observed. Reiterating the concern that every encounter with a 
suspect might have to be videotaped, department officials fear that the 
entire station house would have to be wired for videotaping around the 
clock. Justifying these costs in the face of scarce municipal resources, 
especially for agencies with multiple facilities, can be difficult. 

Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations  75 


Technology Complexity and Dependence 

Another concern about videotaping interrogations is with the recording 
technology and how it may alter police procedures. Police officials point 
out that the technology may become so complex that it requires special 
training for investigators or even a dedicated support staff to keep the 
cameras and other equipment operating. And if recording equipment 
malfunctions during an interrogation, investigators might have to 
interrupt their questioning or even start over. The safeguarding of 
recordings against loss or tampering requires new policies and procedures, 
and possibly storage facilities. Officials also fear that an overreliance 
on videotaping may, over time, erode investigators ability to 
document their interrogations through careful and comprehensive 
note-taking. 

So, Should Departments Videotape? 

Every agency should consider the above concerns before implementing 
videotape interrogations or expanding its use. A key concern for nearly 
every department is that videotaped interrogations or interviews could 
somehow harm or embarrass investigators, especially when shown in 
court. And while there have been situations where these fears were realized, 
training and familiarity with the system have, in many cases, eliminated 
those problems. Indeed, many maintain that their interrogation 
tactics have been enhanced as a result of videotape training. One sergeant 
from Minneapolis said, It has not changed the way [the detectives] 
do their interviews, but has proven that our interview techniques 
are sound. 

Increasingly, courts are requesting and encouraging videotaped 
interrogations. They are often unsympathetic to departments that fail 
to furnish a videotaped interrogation. Sullivan highlights a case where 
the Drug Enforcement Administration failed to videotape an interrogation, 
although they are permitted to use video recording, and the delivery 
of Miranda warnings was in question. The judge said, Affording 
the court the benefit of watching or listening to a videotaped or audio-
taped statement is invaluable; indeed, a tape-recorded interrogation 
allows the court to more accurately assess whether a statement was given 
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Taping is thus the only means 

76  Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations 


of eliminating swearing contests about what went on in the interrogation 
room.14 

Due to the increasing demand for and expectation of videotaped 
interrogations, a number of states, including Massachusetts and New Jersey, 
require that if interrogations are not recorded, the jury must receive 
special instructions notifying them of the lack of a videotape, and to 
consider confessions with caution. 

AGENCY CONSIDERATIONS FOR 
VIDEOTAPING INTERROGATIONS 

Departments need to consider a number of variables to assess current 
videotaping protocols or the need to videotape at all. This list is not 
exhaustive, but does include those variables highlighted as important 
throughout discussions with departments across the country. 

Necessity 

What are the benefits and disadvantages of a departments current interrogation 
recording protocol? Is there a need for the department to modify 
its current protocols? If so, what is the need and how can it be met? 
As a department decides whether to adopt videotaping it may be important 
to take into consideration how many interrogations its does each 
month or each year. Consulting with other departments, including some 
that use video recording and others that do not, can help agencies determine 
the most appropriate policies. 

Current Regulations 

Are there current state or local mandates that could affect a decision 
about videotaping interrogations? Are bills pending? State and local 
mandates have driven several departments across the United States and 
internationally to videotape interrogations. It is essential that a department 
remains aware of laws that potentially could change the way in 
which it carries out investigations. Some departments that have adopted 

14. Sullivan, T. Police Experiences with Recording Custodial Interrogations. Northwestern University 
School of Law, Center on Wrongful Convictions. Special Report, 2004. 
Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations  77 


videotaping cited the possibility of a legislative mandate as the reason 
for their decision. They believed that voluntarily adopting videotaping 
allowed them to do it in a manner consistent with existing agency protocols 
and at their own pace, and that it is better to do it voluntarily 
than have it forced on them. By voluntarily adopting videotaping, 
departments have a claim to the moral high ground and gain recognition 
for that, which they would not have if forced by outsiders to videotape 
interrogations. 

The Decision 

What steps need to be taken to make the decision whether or not to 
videotape interrogations? Departments should involve all key stakeholders, 
especially the local prosecutor, and all affected groups (detectives and 
technological staff) in evaluating and/or developing the protocols. One 
department cautioned others to consider the challenges they will face if 
they adopt videotaping but then decide to rescind that decision. 

Policy 

What portions of the interrogation will a department want to record? 
What crimes will be open to videotaped interrogations? Where will 
videotaping take place? How will confessions in the squad car be 
recognized in light of the fact that other interrogations are videotaped 
at the station? In addition, will the department have specific policies on 
the videotaped interrogations of juveniles, non-English speakers, and 
other vulnerable populations? It is important that a department document 
its rationale for choosing to videotape some and not all people, 
videotaping only certain portions of the interrogation, or videotaping 
only in cases involving certain types of crimes. As noted earlier, some 
judges are becoming unsympathetic to departments that fail to produce 
a taped interrogation. A firm and rational policy may assist the department 
in defending its decisions. For departments that choose not to 
videotape interrogations, it is important that they are able to support 
their decision. 

78  Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations 


Logistics 

What equipment will be needed and how much will it cost? As noted 
previously, departments sometimes cite price as an obstacle to videotaping 
interrogations. Departments that have adopted videotaping say 
that the price is minimal compared to the huge settlements that result 
from wrongful convictionsa consideration that is driving some states 
to videotape. Price, nonetheless, is a consideration. Minimally, departments 
would need a video camera and a location for taping and videotape 
storage, or a digital video camera and a computer for storing the 
electronic data. Other logistical considerations include placement of the 
camera in the room and who is on screen, and assigning someone the 
task of storing the evidence and ensuring that the recording protocol is 
adhered to. 

Training Implications 

How does the potential change in policy and procedure affect training 
requirements? Will technical staff need to assist detectives in carrying out 
videotaping? Departments may need to develop or revise their policies 
and procedures to incorporate changes in the collection and storage of 
electronic evidence. If a department is new to videotaping, it must recognize 
the reluctance of some detectives to be on camera or have their 
work openly available for scrutiny, and may need to develop a training 
program to acclimate those involved. 

Departmental Mindset 

Officials should assess the current perception of videotaping in their 
departments. What are the perceived benefits and pitfalls? Along with 
considerations noted in the training implications mentioned above, 
departments need to support detectives as they transition into videotaped 
interrogations by allowing them to identify the benefits and challenges 
for themselves. 

Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations  79 


CONCLUSION 

Videotaping can be a valuable tool for law enforcement agencies. 
Many departments do it, but not all use it the same way or in the same 
situations. Departments that videotape seemingly are satisfied with the 
benefits they believe are a result of videotaped interrogations. On the 
other hand, departments that do not videotape, or do so only in limited 
situations, express concern that videotaping may be more of a hindrance 
than a help. 

What most departments agree on, however, is the need for empirical 
data that show the measurable outcomes of videotaping, specifically on 
the impact of confessions, clearance rates, and convictions. Such data 
would allow departments to obtain the support necessary to implement 
video interrogations or revise policies accordingly. This research should 
include pilot studies in law enforcement agencies, to provide realistic 
settings, procedures, and outcomes. 

80  Chapter 5. Videotaped Interrogations 


Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement  81 
1. What Every Law Enforcement Officer Should Know About DNA Evidence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, National Commission on the Future of DNA 
Evidence, 1999. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/bc000614.pdf 
DNA does more than just identify the source of 
the sample; it can place a known individual at a 
crime scene, in a home, or in a room where the 
suspect claimed not to have been. It can refute 
a claim of self-defense and put a weapon in the 
suspects hand. It can change a story from an alibi 
to one of consent. The more officers know how to 
use DNA, the more powerful tool it becomes. 
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE 
FUTURE OF DNA EVIDENCE (1999)1 
IN THE LAST DECADE, DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID (DNA) HAS 
assumed a prominent role in homicide investigations. It has proved 
to be a highly valuable tool in identifying potential suspects and has 
helped the criminal justice system recognize its mistakes in convicting 
innocent people. As the justice system has found ever-increasing ways to 
put DNA technology to use, the number and size of public and private 
forensic labs has increased. 
This new emphasis on DNA, as beneficial as it is, imposes costs on 
the justice system. The time burden on law enforcement and forensic 
analysts is enormous. Lab personnel continue to report significant backlogs 
of cases and a shortage of trained lab professionals. One example is 
6 
DNA, Crime Labs, 
and Law Enforcement

the nationwide adoption of legislation to collect and submit convicted 
offenders DNA to a national database. The collection and submission of 
offenders DNA samples and resulting investigations related to this effort 
often fall to law enforcement. This is in addition to their already active 
investigations and cold case reviews. 

Publicity about advances in DNA technology has also fostered an 
unrealistic expectation among laypeople about the availability of forensic 
evidence and analysis in the courtroom. There are ample examples of 
the CSI Effect, named for the television programs that feature the latest 
advances in criminal forensic technology, hindering the prosecution 
of cases because the jury believed that more forensic evidence should 
have been available or analyzed. 

The challenges associated with DNA are extensive, but so are the 
benefits. This chapter discusses the role of DNA in homicide investigations, 
the surge in DNA forensics, the relationships between crime labs 
and police departments, and policy considerations regarding the use of 
DNA in homicide investigations. DNA testing is an enormous topic with 
wide-ranging implications; the particular issues discussed in this chapter 
are ones cited by law enforcement officials as among the most pressing 
and difficult when they convened at PERFs Promoting Effective Homicide 
Investigations conference in May 2006. 

DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID (DNA) 

DNA is a powerful tool for law enforcement in the identification of possible 
suspects. DNA and other forensic evidence may be able to identify 
who was at or near a crime scene or was with the victim at some point, 
but it may not necessarily identify the guilty party. Investigators still 
must rigorously investigate cases and evaluate forensic and other evidence 
to understand exactly what transpired. 

Background 

In 1987, Dr. Alec Jeffreys coined the phrase DNA fingerprinting. In 
England in November 1987, Robert Melias was the first person convicted 
of a crime (rape) on the basis of DNA. The first U.S. conviction was 
also in November 1987, in Orange County, Florida, where Tommy 
Andrews was convicted of rape after his DNA, taken from a blood sample, 

82  Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement 


matched semen traces taken from the victim. Since that time, DNA has 
been accepted as evidence in U.S. courts. 

Since the inception of DNA fingerprinting, detectives have been very 
creative in the ways in which they collect samples for analysis. A number 
of homicides have been solved using saliva from a sealed envelope. Extraordinary 
cases include the following: 

 
A suspects DNA was taken from saliva in a dental impression mold 
and then matched with the DNA swabbed from a victims bite mark.2 
 
A masked rapist was convicted of forced oral copulation when his 
victims DNA matched bodily fluids swabbed from the suspects penis 
6 hours after the offense.3 
 
While surveilling a suspect, officers saw him spit on the street. One 
officer used a napkin to collect the spittle. The saliva provided enough 
evidence to charge the man with the sexual assault and robbery of two 
female victims.4 
 
In 2003, nearly 30 years after the crime and through DNA analysis, a 
man was found guilty of the 1974 rape and homicide of a 19-year-old 
pregnant woman.5 
DNAs Contributions 

DNA has been used to help prosecute guilty parties and exonerate the 
innocent for nearly 2 decades. The 50 largest crime labs in the country 
received more than 30,000 requests for DNA testing in 2004, according 
to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. And since 1984, DNA has been instrumental 
in exonerating 205 persons (see Figure 6). Further, in more than 
35 percent of those exonerated cases, the true culprits have been identified.
6 Many more innocent people have avoided convictions as a result 

2. Presidents DNA Initiative. (2003). http://www.dna.gov/audiences/investigators/know/whatisdna 
3. Connors, Edward et al. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA 
Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, June 1996. 
4. Presidents DNA Initiative. (2003). http://dnacourses.dna.gov/letraining_adv/Sources 
LocationsLimitations/SalivaExample 
5. Starrs, J. The CSI Effect. Scientific Sleuthing Review, Vol. 28 (3)(2004). 
6. Innocence Project Case Profiles. The Innocence Project, no date. http://www.innocence 
project.org/know/ 
Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement  83 


of not matching specific forensic evidence left by the actual perpetrator. 
The National Institute of Justice reports that approximately 25 percent of 
primary suspects in sexual assaults are excluded when DNA tests are 
conducted.7 

DNA in Demand: Cases and Backlogs 

To some extent, DNA analysis has been a victim of its own success. The 
number of samples submitted to labs increases each year. And, while labs 
have been able to increase their personnel and analytical capabilities to 
keep pace with the submissions, it now appears that many DNA laboratories 
in the United States and Canada are facing an overwhelming backlog 
of samples, causing them to miss targeted turnaround times. 
Compounding the problem are shortages in funding, crime lab staffs, 
detectives available to work the cases and prosecutors to take the cases to 
trial. Because of the interrelatedness of investigation, analysis and prosecution, 
an increase in demand for any one of the components can overburden 
the other two components (see Figure 7). 

Figure 6. Chart of DNA Exonerations by Year8 

7. Connors, Edward et al. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA 
Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, June 1996. 
8. Chart modeled after data and similar chart from The Innocence Project, 2006. 
http://www.witnesstoinnocence.org/facts.htm 
84  Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement 


For some departments, the DNA case backlog is in the thousands 
(see sidebar on page 90 for a discussion of the Houston Crime Lab). 
Caseloads are high because they include active cases, cold cases, and cases 
that were closed but reopened because of additional analysis or evidence. 
DNA is collected from crime scenes, from thousands of convicted 
offenders, and at the request of medical examiners, police, attorneys, and 
other interested persons who believe DNA testing can help them prove 
their cases or otherwise give them useful information. The number of 
cases in which DNA analysis was conducted tripled from 1997 to 2000. 

Backlogs are especially severe regarding the critical cases known as 
subject cases, in which suspects have been identified, so DNA testing 
could play an important role in bolstering the case or exonerating any 
false suspects. In 1999, labs reported receiving 21,000 subject cases. One 
year later, subject case submissions increased by nearly 50 percent to 
31,000. Subject case backlogs have increased by 135 percent from 1997 to 
2000, even though convicted offender backlogs (those samples routinely 
collected from convicted offenders) decreased by 7 percent. Still, the 

Figure 7. Backlog Cycle and Requirements for Funding: 
A Comprehensive Approach 

reduction of backlogs requires 
a comprehensive approach 

Investigations 
District Attorney police departmentcourt funding: funding: 

 Staffing  Staffing 
 Support  Training 
 Equipment 
Analysis 

lab funding: 

 Staffing 
 Training 
 Equipment 
Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement  85 


National Institute of Justice estimated in 2003 that the convicted offender 
samples that remained untested numbered between 200,000 and 
300,000.9 In addition to those samples collected but not analyzed, another 
important category is DNA samples that have not yet been collected. 
Between 500,000 and 1,000,000 samples still needed to be collected from 
convicted offenders as a result of state legislation requiring convicted 
offenders DNA.10 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics surveyed the 50 largest crime labs in 
the country11 and learned that the 2002 end-of-year backlog for all analyses 
was more than double the number at the beginning of the year (see 
Table 4). Cases involving DNA analysis accounted for 10 to 15 percent of 
the overall backlog in 2002, yet they accounted for approximately 2 percent 
of both requests and completed requests. 

Lab directors often tout their ability to turn around a DNA analysis 
within a few days. Unless the analysis receives the highest priority, however, 
investigators in the typical homicide case are likely to wait several 
months and perhaps up to a year or more for analysis. As a result, in 
2000, 45 percent of state- and locally-run crime labs reported that they 
contracted out to private labs to help reduce their backlogs.12 

Table 4. Crime Lab Backlogs 

		2002 
		Year-Start 
		Backlog 	Requests 
						Requests 
						Completed 
								2002 
								Year-End 	
								Backlog 
Overall 
Cases 		116,707 	1,204,922 	1,051,302 	270,327 

DNA 		18,130 		30,761 		18,171 		30,720 

9. Presidents DNA Initiative. (2003). www.dna.gov. 
10. Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology: Using DNA to Solve Crimes, U.S. Department of 
Justice, March 2003, http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/dnapolicybook_cov.htm. 
11. Hickman, Matthew, J. and Joseph L. Petersen. 50 Largest Crime Labs, 2000. Bureau of Justice 
Statistics Fact Sheet. NCJ # 205988. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, September 2004. 
12. Steadman, Greg W. Survey of DNA Crime Laboratories, 2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics 
Bulletin. NCJ #191191. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
January 2002. 
86  Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement 


DNA EVIDENCE IN 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 

Law enforcement agencies rely on various arrangements to ensure the 
analysis of DNA and other forensic evidence. Many large departments 
have their own labs while others rely on local, state, federal or private 
labs. For example, three departments are highlighted below (Table 5) to 
include details of which lab they use; their average turnaround time for 
DNA analysis; and what, if any, future plans might exist. 

In an attempt to increase forensic capabilities, many law enforcement 
agencies are exploring the feasibility of starting their own DNA lab. 
Creating and operating a forensics laboratory is a complex task, and 
departments must carefully examine the potential challenges and benefits. 
Among the issues to consider are the following: 

 
Staffing and credentialing 
 
Oversight 
 
Evidence management and prioritization 
 
DNA in the courtroom 
Table 5. Police Departments, Labs, and DNA Turnarounds: 
Three Examples 

City 
(Population) Lab Utilization 
Typical DNA 
Turnaround* Future Plans 
Washington, 
D.C. PD 
(550,000) 
Federal 1 year Secure own lab 
Denver PD 
(557,900) 
Own 
(~35 staff) 
3 months $20-million upgrade 
to new lab with 
60,000 sq. ft. 
San Jose PD 
(912,300) 
County Lab 
(shared by 14 
police depts.) 
68 weeks New county facility; 
expand space by 2/3 
*A typical turnaround is defined as a non-high profile case and 
the reported current expected time necessary for turnaround. 

Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement  87 


 
Funding 
 
Other resources. 
This section of the chapter highlights these considerations and 
includes key points to consider when evaluating departmental lab capabilities, 
accessibilities, and outcomes. 

Staffing and Credentials 

Forensic labs require highly proficient and credentialed personnel, from 
the director to analysts and technicians. One of the most often-cited reasons 
for starting a lab is the need for shorter turnaround times for analysis, 
accompanied by greater access to lab staff. For many departments, 
especially large ones with heavy caseloads, this is a compelling reason. 
Delays of months or even years in the analysis of forensic evidence can 
have a significant impact on the departments ability to solve cases and 
bring offenders to justice. A dedicated lab can certainly reduce those 
delays. 

Forensic labs are facing a significant shortfall in credentialed analysts. 
Labs across the country collectively reported that they would need nearly 
2,000 additional full-time personnel to achieve a 30-day turnaround for 
requests to analyze samples.13 The cost for this personnel demand was 
estimated at $70 million. This understaffing creates bottlenecks in processing 
and analysis that, in turn, slows investigations. Indeed, the shortage 
is so significant in some parts of the country that departments are 
bidding against each to hire and retain forensic specialists. 

Oversight 

Another issue to consider is the relationship between investigators and 
forensic analysts, who, although they work for the same department, 
must adhere to their specific roles and responsibilities. Analysts must be 
able to perform analyses and interpret results consistent with scientific 
standards and free of any potential persuasion or influence. Departments 

13. Federal Bureau of Investigation. CODIS. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/oct2005/ 
research/2005_10_research02.htm 
88  Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement 


must think carefully about organizational relationships and reporting 
authorities, to ensure that work is completed in a way that allows the 
department to remain effective while operating with the highest degree 
of integrity. Some law enforcement leaders have been adamant that labs 
need to be completely independent of departments for integrity purposes. 
On the other hand, if a crime lab is within the police departments 
authority, the department must ensure adequate oversight of the lab and 
its staff. 

Both independent and department-affiliated labs have been criticized 
for a lack of standards, poor oversight, and mishandling or misrepresenting 
of facts to bias a case. One of the most notorious cases of faulty 
forensic work and testimony involved Fred Zain, a serologist with the 
West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory and then the Bexar County, 
Texas, Medical Examiners office. Mr. Zain falsely reported evidence as 
conclusive, altered lab records, and overstated the strength of results. 
These behaviors were not only illegal but highly unethical and jeopardized 
the entire justice system. The West Virginia State Supreme Court 
ruled that none of the testimony Mr. Zain gave in more than 130 cases 
was credible. Further, the Court ordered him indicted for perjury.14 This 
is the exception, but officials need to be mindful of the importance of 
supervision and maintaining high ethical standards. 

Evidence Management and Prioritization 

A crime scene can yield dozens of samples for forensic analysis. And 
while investigators, crime scene technicians, and forensic analysts contribute 
to the prosecution of an offender, their methods and priorities 
are sometimes different. The recent advances in DNA capabilities have 
highlighted these differences. Department administrators must carefully 
consider who will have responsibility for identifying, collecting, transporting 
and storing DNA evidence. Investigators, laboratory personnel 
and evidence technicians should work together to determine the most 
effective procedures for managing evidence. Those procedures must be 
delineated in written policies. Similarly, personnel must receive training 

14. National Institute of Justice. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of 
DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
National Institute of Justice, 1996. 
Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement  89 


The Fall and Rise of One Crime Lab 

[Houston has] become the Enron of crime labs 

15

DAVID BERG, HOUSTON TRIAL LAWYER

In 2002, a local television station investigated the Houston Police 
Departments (HPD) Crime Lab procedures and outcomes, spurring 
a long, expensive, and painful journey for the lab. As a result of the 
investigation, an independent investigator, Michael Bromwich, was 
brought in by the new police chief, Harold Hurtt, and was assigned 
three main tasks: 1. examine policies and procedures guiding the lab; 

2. evaluate more than 2,000 case samples that were processed at the 
lab between 1987 and 2002; and 3. closely examine individual cases 
where defendants were convicted using samples that were found to 
have major flaws during that time period. His findings uncovered 
unqualified and poorly trained lab staff, poor lab oversight and management, 
major errors that included a failure to test essential samples, 
inaccurate results, misrepresentation of results, contamination 
of evidence, and falsifying reported results.16 
More than 30 percent of the DNA samples retested yielded 
major errors. The DNA lab was shut down in 2002 as a result of these 
findings. During that time, DNA evidence was sent to private labs for 
testing. 

The aftermath resulted in several lab employees being implicated 
for most of the erroneous findings; two prisoners being exonerated; 
four death-row inmates lab results being placed in serious question; 
a projected cost of more than $10 million;17 and the huge challenge 

15. Dole, L., T. Wilson, and K. Walsh. Houston Crime Labs Fake Results May Undermine Prosecutors. 
(No date) www.dydflaw.com/index.cfm?t=11&la=209 
16. Bromwich, M.R. Fifth Report of the Independent Investigator for the Houston Police Department 
Crime Laboratory and Property Room. May 11, 2006. www.hpdlabinvestigation.org 
17. Nichols, B. (2006, February 22). Response to crime lab scandal criticized. Retrieved June 30, 
2006 from www.khou.com 
90  Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement 


associated with restoring the integrity of the lab and ensuring sound 
findings. In addition to the Bromwich investigations, two grand juries 
investigated the lab staff and procedures, but did not return any criminal 
indictments. 

The challenge to restore the labs integrity has been under way 
since the investigation began. Chief Hurtt has taken a number of 
major steps. A new lab director and DNA division chief were hired and 
have secured accreditation for the entire lab, including the DNA division. 
The American Society of Crime Lab Directors and Bromwich 
himself have recognized the effort Houston has made to instill confidence 
in the lab. The battle is far from over, and lessons were learned 
the hard way; but this experience highlights the importance of competent 
staff, training, protocols, oversight, and quality assurance to 
deliver accurate outcomes. This is a lesson that can benefit all labs 
and police departments.  

Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement  91 


on these procedures and their roles, as well as on advances in DNA technology. 
A number of departments now provide investigators with an 
annual in-service class focusing on DNA technology and its effect on 
investigations. 

Detectives need to be well-versed in processing crime scenes so they 
can effectively identify and collect DNA evidence or oversee evidence 
technicians as they process scenes. Just like there are differences in levels 
of competence among homicide detectives, the same is true of evidence 
technicians. Agencies get only one chance to process a scene properly, so 
those personnel who have those responsibilities must know the proper 
procedures, including the most common items of evidence that may 
contain DNA, the location of the DNA on those items, and the proper 
procedures for collecting it. 

A common tendency among investigators and crime scene technicians 
is to collect as much evidence as possible, with the assumption that 
the analysis will determine whether the evidence is important to the case. 
From an investigators perspective, this practice makes sense. But from 
an analysts perspective, this can contribute to an already heavy workload, 
and may not be the most efficient use of an analysts time. Again, 
proper training should be provided that instructs investigators and technicians 
in the amount and type of evidence to collect. Some of the basic 
principles of collecting DNA evidence include the following:18 

 
Wear gloves. Change them between handling different samples of 
evidence. 
 
Use disposable instruments or clean them thoroughly before and after 
handling each sample. 
 
Do not touch the area where you believe DNA may exist. 
 
Do not talk, sneeze, and cough over evidence. 
 
Do not touch your face, nose, and mouth when collecting and packaging 
evidence. 
18. What Every Law Enforcement Officer Should Know About DNA Evidence. Washington, D.C.: 
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, National Institute of Justice, September 
1999. 
92  Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement 


 
Air-dry evidence 
 
Put dry evidence into new paper bags or envelopes; do not use plastic 
bags. 
 
Do not use staples. 
 
If repackaging of evidence is necessary, consult with laboratory 
personnel. 
Storing and preserving evidence creates a number of challenges, as 
well. As DNA technology continues to advance, evidence once believed 
to be unable to yield usable DNA can become important for analysis 
years later. Careful storage and preservation of evidence is vital, and 
agencies need to develop appropriate protocols that will preserve DNA 
evidence. 

A comprehensive report published in 2004 found that the many law 
enforcement agencies misunderstand the benefits of DNA testing; that 
is, 25 percent of the surveyed agencies stated that they did not send DNA 
evidence to a crime lab because they had not identified a suspect, a situation 
when DNA evidence could actually prove quite useful.19 Educating 
investigators about the uses and benefits of DNA will reduce the backlog 
in crime labs and will result in a greater number of solved cases. The 
Presidents DNA Initiative provides online courses for law enforcement 
officers. These courses can be found at http://dna.gov/training/ 
letraining/. In addition, a variety of publications and brochures are available 
for investigators through the Presidents DNA Initiative at 
http://www.dna.gov/pubs/investigators/. 

An abundance of evidence samples can create problems for analysts 
who must prioritize and manage this workload. Absent any guidance 
from investigators about the relative importance of evidence samples, 
laboratory staff may prioritize samples in a number of ways: 

 
Case court dates 
 
Prosecutor requests 
19. Lovrich, N.P., T.C. Pratt, M.J. Gaffney, C.L. Johnson, and C.H. Asplen. National Forensic DNA 
Study, Final Report. February 2004. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/203970.pdf 
Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement  93 


 
High profile cases 
 
In order of receipt. 
Creating an objective chart detailing how cases should be prioritized 
will create a standard procedure that will aid in reducing backlogs. 

The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence recommended, 
and a number of lab staff and detectives have agreed, that the 
key to appropriate prioritization and reduced turnaround times is maintaining 
a positive relationship between investigators and analysts. If 
detectives and analysts can discuss the samples collected, questions that 
the detectives need to have answered, and the possible usefulness of the 
samples collected, lab staff will be better prepared to prioritize samples 
for analysis. 

In much the same way that investigators follow case management 
protocols, the efficient management of DNA samples would benefit from 
protocols developed jointly by investigators and analysts. Agencies need 
to consider the needs of investigators and analysts to ensure that investigators 
have the evidence they need without overwhelming analysts with 
unnecessary samples. 

DNA in the Courtroom: The CSI Effect 

The CSI Effect, named for the popular CSI television shows, refers to 
peoples unrealistically high expectations about the power of forensic 
evidence. One frequently cited example of the CSI Effect is the laypersons 
notion that fingerprints should appear on any object. Another 
example is a case where a jury acquitted a defendant because of the 
detectives failure to test a soda bottle at the crime scene for DNA 
evidence.20 

Juries may find it hard to accept that real-life investigations are very 
different from those seen on television. Further, each police department 
is different and has a different level of access to crime labs that may or 
may not have the latest technology. Each crime scene is different. Often 
evidence has degraded or cannot be tested for other reasons. Even if 

20. Starrs, J. The CSI Effect. Scientific Sleuthing Review, Vol. 28 (3)(2004). 
94  Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement 


potentially useful evidence is found at a crime scene, enormous backlogs 
at the crime lab may delay its testing for many months, unlike the scenes 
in CSI, where test results are given within minutes. 

To counter the CSI Effect, departments have moved toward the use 
of negative evidence witnesses, who educate the jury and judge on the 
evidence that was available, collected, and analyzed in the particular case. 
They can also assist the jury in understanding why particular evidence 
(e.g., a fingerprint on the weapon) was not found at the crime scene in 
the case. 

Funding 

Crime lab budgets have increased for the most part; however, some 
remain constrained, given the backlog and the enormous importance of 
DNA testing in the exoneration of innocent people and conviction of 
those who are guilty. The mean annual budget for the 50 largest DNA 
labs in 2000 was $464,000.21 The mean annual budget for forensics labs 
in general in 2000 was $3,091,000. Using these figures, DNA budgets 
accounts for 15 percent of the entire lab budget annually. 

Recognizing the importance of DNA advances, the National Institute 
of Justice began funding labs in 2001specifically to reduce backlogs 
through the Forensic Casework DNA Backlog Reduction Program and 
the Convicted Offender DNA Backlog Reduction Programs. Another 
initiative, the Solving Cold Cases with DNA grant program, awarded 38 
proposals totaling more than $14 million.22 

In addition, two sizable funding sources include assistance for various 
aspects of building and maintaining crime labs. They are the Paul 
Coverdell Forensic Services Improvement Grant and the Presidents 
DNA Initiative. 

The Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement grant program 
provides funding to crime laboratories for laboratory facilities, personnel, 
equipment, computerization, supplies, accreditation, certification, 
and education and training. 

21. Federal Bureau of Investigation. CODIS. Retrieved October 5, 2006, from http://www.fbi.gov. 
22. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/ 
Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement  95 


In 2003, President Bush announced a 5-year, more than $1 billion 
DNA initiative to improve the use of DNA in the criminal justice system.
23 The Presidents DNA Initiative aims to do the following: 

 
Eliminate the backlog of cases 
 
Improve lab capacities; 
 
Stimulate research 
 
Develop training; 
 
Provide post-conviction DNA access 
 
Ensure DNA technology is used for missing persons cases 
 
Protect the innocent. 
In 2005 and 2006, Congress appropriated more than $100 million to 
fund activities under the Presidents DNA Initiative. 

Other Resources: 
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) 

The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a free database that local 
and state law enforcement agencies can use to exchange and compare 
DNA information electronically. It is a resource for matching DNA in a 
series of crimes, even if they are years apart. The database is hosted by 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and has been in existence since 1990. 
CODIS participating laboratories are located in all 50 states and operate 
at the local, state, and national level. The database is divided into three 
tiers: the Local DNA Index System (LDIS), the State DNA Index System 
(SDIS), and the National DNA Index System (NDIS). This structure 
allows each agency to operate the database within its jurisdictions legal 
framework. More than 170 public law enforcement laboratories in the 
United States use NDIS, and internationally 40 departments in 25 countries 
use the CODIS software. 

23. Presidents DNA Initiative. (2003). www.dna.gov. 
96  Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement 


As of May 2007, CODIS contained more than 4.7 million DNA profiles. 
The profiles are broken up into forensic profiles, where the DNA 
originated from crime scene evidence, and offender profiles, which contain 
the DNA of individuals convicted of sex offenses and other violent 
crimes. About 4.5 million profiles in the database are offender profiles. 
The CODIS system will identify matches between forensic DNA evidence 
and DNA from offenders. The CODIS system may also contain 
DNA profiles of missing persons, unidentified human remains, and 
arrestees (if state law allows). 

As it has already assisted in more than 50,000 investigations, resulting 
in more than 49,000 matches, CODIS is becoming an important tool 
for law enforcement. Because the system electronically matches DNA 
evidence to a growing list of convicted offenders, law enforcement agencies 
across jurisdictions can rely on the system to catch serial offenders.24 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR 
DNA AND FORENSIC LABS 

The challenges identified in this chapter are threefold: 

1. Promote a greater understanding of the potential of DNA 
2. Support multidimensional funding of labs, police, support agencies, 
and prosecutors to comprehensively work the cases that result from 
the advancements in DNA analysis and to reduce the backlogs 
3. Foster a balanced relationship between labs and police to ensure 
greater case management of evidence and open communication. 
A departments decision to start its own lab, instead of using state, 
federal, or private facilities, is a significant change that requires thorough 
consideration of all possible implications. Departments need to carefully 
evaluate their current lab facilities and their future needs. Considerations 
include: financial resources, facilities, and equipment; workload 
demands and trends; training and staffing needs; and working relationships 
among investigators, analysts, and prosecutors. Specifically, police 

24. Federal Bureau of Investigation. CODIS. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/index1.htm 
Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement  97 


and sheriffs department officials need to ask themselves the following 
questions: 

1. What current resources exist within the department and with state, 
federal, or private entities to assist law enforcement with lab analysis? 
2. What federal grants are being offered to assist with lab costs or equipment 
for the department that can be used in conjunction with lab analysis? 
Are funding opportunities available from the state government? 
3. What are similar cities doing to address DNA demands? Are those initiatives 
feasible for us? Do local legislators understand the need facing 
law enforcement with regard to criminal investigations? What are they 
doing to address the need? 
4. What is the current need for DNA analysis? Has this need increased 
over the last few years? If so, why and how has the need for DNA 
analysis increased? Project future caseloads based on past trends and 
current and proposed legislation. Are we likely to experience a surge 
in DNA cases in the next few years? Consider the increase in DNA 
caseloads when convicted sex offenders and other felons were mandated 
to submit DNA samples. How did this change affect the work of 
the department and investigations on DNA matches to unsolved 
crimes? Are we prepared for future changes in DNA demands? 
5. What is our current training protocol for DNA collection at crime 
scenes? Who is responsible for the collection and are they receiving 
appropriate training? Does the chain of custody carry through to the 
lab? 
6. What is our current protocol for prioritizing DNA analysis? Do we 
have a standard prioritization system in place? 
7. Does our department, prosecutors office or lab use negative evidence 
witnesses to testify in court? If not, would this be valuable? 
8. How does the current crime lab staff interact with detectives? What 
steps need to be taken to reinforce that relationship to promote better 
communication, prioritization of evidence analysis, and faster turnaround 
times? Does the relationship allow the lab staff to remain 
impartial in reporting their results? 
98  Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement 


CONCLUSION 

Crime labs are a vital part of the criminal justice system. The increase 
in crime labs and DNA advancements has contributed significantly to 
solving crimes, and specifically homicides. With this increase has come 
an overwhelming responsibility to ensure that the science is supported 
with well-qualified staff, appropriate equipment, and adequate training 
to manage the caseloads and backlogs. Legislation often results as a 
good-faith effort to assist law enforcement; however, lawmakers sometimes 
fail to fully recognize the burden they place on police agency personnel 
when they mandate new kinds of DNA testing. The laws that 
require offenders to contribute DNA are indeed a benefit to the criminal 
justice system, but they are also fostering an overload on the law enforcement 
community. 

More research is needed to understand how DNA affects convictions, 
clearance rates, staffing, and the criminal justice system overall. DNA is 
widely accepted as an extremely useful tool in fighting crime, both to keep 
innocent people from going to jail and to convict the guilty. Nevertheless, 
the full impact and strains that this technological advancement is having 
on the criminal justice system need to be explored further. 

Chapter 6. DNA, Crime Labs, and Law Enforcement  99 


Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations  101 
1. Using DNA to Solve Cold Cases. NIJ Special Report, July 2002. National Commission on the 
Future of DNA Evidence. 
Cold case units are essential. 
AL CARDARELLI, SENIOR FELLOW AT THE 
MCCORMACK GRADUATE SCHOOL OF POLICY 
STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, BOSTON 
THE RECENT GROWTH OF COLD CASE UNITS CAN BE 
directly attributed to the improved ability to analyze forensic 
evidence such as DNA. Though law enforcement agencies have 
struggled with unsolved cases for years, advances in evidence analysis 
have greatly improved the ability of cold case units to produce results. 
Laboratories can now develop DNA profiles from biological evidence 
that is invisible to the naked eye, whereas a decade ago technicians needed 
a sample as large as a quarter to complete such tests. Additionally, 
new testing techniques such as mitochondrial DNA analysis allows laboratories 
to process degraded evidence that was previously useless 
forensically.1 
With these increases in forensic technology capabilities, and decreases 
in homicide rates in the 1990s freeing up resources in many law 
enforcement agencies, police started investigating cold cases and some 
departments formed cold case units. Departments have had significant 
successes with cold case investigations, solving many homicides and 
bringing offenders to justice. 
7 
Cold Case 
Investigations

Unsolved homicides have bad effects on investigators productivity; it 
is more difficult to focus on each new case if there is a large backlog of 
open cases that still need work. The inability of police departments to close 
cases can affect police-community relations, as well. When offenders 
remain free, the level of fear in a community can increase. As a result, 
police may encounter reluctance and resistance from possible witnesses 
who fear retaliation from an offender still on the loose. This is especially 
true for those who live in neighborhoods with high rates of crime and 
gang-related activity. And, of course, family members and friends of homicide 
victims continue to experience the additional stress of watching and 
hoping for an arrest to be made as long as their cases remain unsolved. 

As the number of so-called cold cases increases, so, too, does the frustration 
level among officers. This becomes a vicious cycle: caseloads 
increase for officers, which reduces the likelihood that new cases will be 
solved, which can lead to a greater number of homicides because offenders 
remain free to commit additional homicides or become victims themselves. 
The need to break this cycle, Professor Al Cardarelli of the 
University of Massachusetts argues, is one reason why cold case units are 
essential. 

This chapter describes police agencies experiences with organizing 
cold case units and their insights on pertinent issues. Departments have 
taken a number of approaches to organizing and staffing cold case units. 
These various methods are highlighted so that agencies can determine 
which model best fits their needs and available resources. The following 
factors are discussed: staffing, prioritizing cases, opening and pursuing a 
case, challenges and potential solutions, using the media, and community 
resources. 

COLD CASE UNITS 
What is a cold case? 

The term cold case means different things to different agencies. The 
definition depends on several factors. In particular, the number of cases 
and the number of employees available to investigate them will dictate a 
departments cold case definition. The goal of setting a definition is to 
include unsolved cases that have grown somewhat old but are not so 
old that there can be no hope of ever solving them. For instance, some 

102  Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations 


departments consider a case cold if it is unsolved and occurred between 
1950 and 2003, because there is still a good chance that witnesses from 1950 
may be alive and available for an interview. Other departments have broader 
definitions that include unsolved cases that are only 1 year old. Still others 
offer additional clauses. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 
for example, used a tight working definition while they organized the 
unit; officials originally decided not to consider a case cold if the original 
investigating officer was still in the department. Once the department 
gained additional resources for the cold case unit, the definition was 
amended to include all unsolved cases dating back at least 10 years. 

Who works on cold cases? 

Although cold case units are relatively new, no one model has emerged as 
a standard. The consensus among agencies investigating cold cases, however, 
is that if an agency wishes to investigate cold cases, it should assign 
individuals full-time to the task. There are numerous examples in which 
a lone officer, instead of a cold-case team in a separate unit, was assigned 
cold case tasks, and later was reassigned to new cases because the caseload 
of active cases was too heavy. As a result, experts suggest that agencies create 
a specialized cold case unit, assign full-time staff to the unit, organize 
and prioritize the cold cases. In some agencies, cold case units are a part 
of the large homicide unit, while in others they are a separate unit. 

Typically, the size of the unit is based on a number of factors, including 
the local homicide rate, the size of the agency, and the number of cold 
cases on file. There are many approaches to staffing a cold case unit, but 
nearly all units make use of hybrid staffing that pairs seasoned, sworn 
officers with experienced and motivated civilian volunteers who have the 
time to dedicate to the cause of solving cold cases. Civilian review teams 
analyze cold cases, often relying on solvability factors, and then pass along 
the most promising cases to active investigators for follow-up. Some of 
the civilians are retired police officers while others have analytical skills 
conducive to reviewing case files. The following examples describe 
arrangements that have proved successful for particular agencies: 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, Police Department 

 
established: February 2003 
Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations  103 


 
open cases: 400 cases dating to 1963 

 
staffing: Blend of sworn members and civilian volunteers. Sworn 
members include two homicide detectives, one sergeant, and one FBI 
agent who is detailed to the Charlotte Safe Streets Task Force. 
 
status: The seven-member civilian review team includes four retired 
FBI agents, one retired New York Police Department captain, one 
retired Duke Energy engineer, and a professor from the University of 
North CarolinaCharlotte. The unit has reviewed 65 cases and has 
cleared 17. 
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 

 
established: November 2005 
 
open cases: 550 cases dating from 1943 to 1996, and consistent with 
agency policy that cases must be more than 10 years old. 

 
staffing: A lieutenant and one sworn officer, plus a retired lieutenant 
and sergeant. Three civilian volunteers assist on a part-time basis. 
Chicago Police Department 

 
established: 1999 
 
open cases: 4,453 unsolved cases from 1982 through 2002 
 
staffing: One lieutenant, two sergeants, 20 detectives, one evidence 
coordinator, and one administrative aide. Interns from local universities 
assist the unit with clerical tasks. 
Austin, Texas Police Department 

 
established: 2001 
 
open cases: 125 cases dating to the 1960s 
 
staffing: One sergeant and five detectives are assigned to the unit 
full-time. 
Denver Police Department 

 
established: 2004 
 
open cases: A cold case is defined as an open, unsolved case that is at 
least three years old. The workload currently consists of 30 cases. 

104  Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations 


 
staffing: Three detectives and a supervisor are dedicated to the cold 
case unit. 
Seattle Police Department 

 
established: 2001 
 
open cases: Defined as unsolved homicides going back 30 years. 
 
staffing: The unit is composed of a sergeant and two detectives, 
chosen chiefly for their interviewing skills. 
 
status: Since the unit was established, 34 cases have been reopened, 
including 25 with DNA samples. All 34 cases have been solved. 
As the examples show, the staffing of cold case units differs significantly 
across agencies. Each agency should consider workload and staff 
availability when deciding how to staff the unit. 

Regarding the people who should staff cold case units, many agencies 
agree that the following attributes are important: 

 
Significant experience in homicide investigations. One lieutenant 
went so far as to suggest that it is important to put your most experienced 
detectives on the cold case squad. 
 
Trial and prosecution experience. An investigator with this experience 
typically has better insight into the value of testimony and careful 
evidence collection. 
 
Self-motivation. People with the desire to work independently fit well 
into a cold case unit. 
 
Compassion. Investigators must be able to relate to the victims family 
and friends. 
 
Knowledge of technology and forensics. The ability to conduct 
research, to locate information and analyze it effectively, is critical. 
 
Communication skills. Investigators should have effective interviewing 
and interrogation skills, and should be able to interact with a variety 
of people. 
 
Patience and perseverance. Those attributes may be the two most 
important qualities for working cold cases, stressed one investigator. 
Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations  105 


Nearly every cold case unit studied has made use of civilian review 
teams, volunteers, and/or interns. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 
Department hires paid civilian investigative aides to review cases according 
to solvability criteria. Washington, D.C.s Metropolitan Police 
Department solicits assistance from unpaid college interns to review 
cases. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department employs unpaid 
volunteers with law enforcement experience. All volunteers and interns 
must submit to a background check. 

Innovative Approaches 

Some departments would like to establish a cold case unit but feel they 
cannot spare any full-time officers to staff it. The Las Vegas Metropolitan 
Police Department (LVMPD) may serve as a model for such departments. 
A lieutenant commands the unit, which also includes two retired 
investigators. While the investigators had years of experience between 
them and met all of the qualifications for the job, as retired temporary 
employees they found it difficult to convince contacts and witnesses to 
share information. However, LVMPD worked around this impediment 
by reinstating its Reserve Police Officer Program. The investigators now 
operate with full law enforcement status, which enhanced their credibility 
and made tasks such as arrests and affidavits much easier to accomplish. 
The Reserve Police Officer Program adheres to three primary 
guidelines. The petitioner must: 

 
Be retired from the LVMPD 
 
Be reemployed within 5 years of his or her retirement date 
 
Continue Police Officer Standards and Training certifications. 
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department also expanded the 
abilities of its detectives. Using Title 18, Section 566(c) of the U.S. Code, 
the local law enforcement officers have been granted federal deputy status 
(i.e., deputized), allowing them a broader jurisdiction. Any federal 
law enforcement agency can sponsor a state or local law enforcement 
officer and request the authority to provide the officer with federal 
deputy status from the U.S. Marshals Service. If an investigation leads 
detectives to evidence outside of North Carolina, deputized Charlotte

106  Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations 


Mecklenburg detectives would retain the authority to operate. Due to the 
nature of cold cases, many of the witnesses and suspects have moved 
away from the area where the crime was committed. This makes travel a 
necessity for cold case detectives, and makes deputizing extremely useful. 

CASE MANAGEMENT 
Prioritizing Cold Cases 

The unit has been staffed, the policy has been set, and the cold cases have 
been organized. How should a department decide which case to tackle 
first? The LVMPD cold case unit created a five-point solvability scale to 
determine the viability of a particular case. Each of the five levels is differentiated 
by the information provided in the case report. For instance, 
cases designated as Level 1top priority caseshave a file that includes 
a named suspect, forensic evidence (e.g., DNA, latent fingerprint, 
firearms ballistics), witness identification of the suspect, and physical 
evidence that connects the suspect to the victim (e.g., photographs, 
writing, fibers). Cases that contain all of the above except a named suspect 
are designated as Level 2. Cases that receive lowest priority, Level 5, 
have only physical evidence as a lead. (See Appendix F for the Las Vegas 
Metropolitan Police Departments Cold Case Solvability Criteria and 
Appendix G for the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Departments 
Homicide Case Review Solvability Chart.) 

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department has developed similar 
solvability factors for its cold cases. When reviewing files, investigators 
consider the following questions: 

 
Does physical evidence exist? 
 
Is it possible to obtain (from the evidence room) such evidence? 
 
Was a witness identified? 
 
Is the suspect living, dead, or incarcerated? 
 
Is there an opportunity for multiple clearances (i.e., is there a chance 
this is a serial rapist or killer)? 
 
Has the case been previously presented to the prosecutors and not 
accepted for any reason? 
Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations  107 


Other departments have found that even after prioritizing the cases 
through the analysis of such criteria, there is still a large number of 
potential cases from which to choose. So even though a methodical 
approach was initially followed, publicity generated by their successes led 
them to concentrate on cases that are brought to their attention through 
family inquiries and other means. 

Opening a Case 

The case review process established by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg cold 
case unit has proved quite successful; the department has received international 
awards and has been recognized by the Department of Justice as 
a model for other agencies. Each case is reviewed by the cold case civilian 
review team and then described at a monthly unit meeting to the 
entire cold case team, according to the following format: 

 
Victimology 
 
Summary of crime 
 
Medical Examiners report 
 
Evidence and/or property collected 
 
Lab reports 
 
Witness locations 
 
Parallel investigations 
 
Potential suspects 
 
Recommended follow-up. 
At the conclusion of the presentation, unit members discuss the case 
as a team and assign it a solvability rating between 1 and 5 (1 = high solvability, 
5 = low probability of arrest). Detectives previously assigned to 
the case are also invited to participate in the review, even if they are 
retired. Often they are able to provide more detailed information than 
written notes can convey. Once the case is presented, a DNA lab staff 

108  Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations 


member is assigned to the case team, ensuring that any evidence will be 
processed as quickly as possible. A follow-up report is then written. 

The three main benefits of using a civilian review team to open a case 
are: 1. the summary format model is concise, 2. the legwork completed 
by the review team allows the detectives more time to actually work the 
cases, and 3. the summary review can be used to present the case to the 
district attorney. 

Investigators from the Seattle Police Department who attended the 
PERF conference concurred that it is important to meet with the detectives 
who originally worked the case to pick their brains. All departments 
agreed that meeting with witnesses is another important step that 
should occur early in the investigation when opening a cold case. Sometimes, 
investigators have found that relationships change over time and 
those who were once reluctant to talk are now willing to cooperate. 
Another technique that has proved fruitful is to track down jailhouse 
inmates who know, or knew, the suspect. Many times, incarcerated perpetrators 
confess, or brag, about crimes to their cellmates, who can be 
persuaded to share this information. 

Engaging the Public 

People in the community can provide a wealth of information to an 
investigation. Some community members may have been witnesses to a 
crime, while others may knowthrough personal relationships or 
hearsayof crimes that have been committed and by whom. Tapping 
into this knowledge base can help investigators discover relevant leads in 
cold cases. At the PERF conference on homicide investigations, officials 
of several departments offered examples of how they publicize their cold 
cases and engage the public in their own communities. 

The Chicago Police Department has learned that it reaches more 
people, especially the Spanish-speaking population of the city, by taking 
advantage of media resources. They spotlight cases on Telemundo, the 
second largest Spanish-language television network in the United States. 

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department also recommends 
using media outlets. The LVMPD publicizes cold cases on both public 
television stations and the Internet. On television, the department provides 
details of the case and interviews with family members to generate 
human interest, and then solicits input from the community. 

Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations  109 


The Jerri Jones Case 

Jerri A. Jones was last seen outside of the Harris Teeter supermarket 
where she worked in Charlotte, North Carolina, on July 8, 1987. 
Coworkers recalled seeing her at the store between the end of her shift 
at 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. She was reportedly waiting to be picked up 
by her boyfriend, who was known for running late. 

A petite 19-year-old, Jones had been working at Harris Teeter for 2 
years and was described by coworkers as an excellent worker and 
pleasant to be around. She had not planned to remain there much 
longer, because she was graduating from community college and 
planning to attend the University of North Carolina the next year. 

Based on interviews with friends, family, and acquaintances, investigators 
concluded in their report that, There was nothing about her 
lifestyle that would have made her susceptible to an act of violence.2 
And yet, that is exactly what happened to her. Her body was found 2 
days after her disappearance with evidence revealing she had died as 
a result of a violent assault. 

Luckily, investigators had one strong lead: a possible witness to 
the crime. A woman heard cries for help from the enclosed flatbed 
area of a white pickup truck the night Jones disappeared. The truck, 
she reported, had been driving through the Harris Teeter parking lot. 
Armed with the eyewitness account and a good deal of evidence found 
at the scene where Ms. Jones body was found (blood, a cigarette 
package, a shoe impression, a tire impression, a tie, duct tape, and a 
rape kit), officers initiated an investigation. 

Additionally, Harris Teeter, Inc. offered a $10,000 reward for information 
leading to the arrest and indictment of the person responsible 
for Jones death. The evidence and reward announcement each produced 
a number of leads, but none was fruitful. A detailed offender 

2. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department investigative case report. 
110  Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations 


profile provided by the FBIs National Center for the Analysis of 
Violent Crime (NCAVC) would later prove to be highly accurate, but at 
the time did not help the investigative team to pinpoint the perpetrator 
either. 

Fast-forward 17 years: A civilian review team at the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Police Department presented its draft report to the cold 
case unit on September 3, 2004. The 99-page report outlined the original 
investigation into the homicide of Ms. Jones. Details included the 
summary of the crime, the medical examiners report, a crime scene 
summary report, a list of property and evidence recovered, the NCAVC 
profile, missing person investigation results, a canvass report, a list of 
witnesses, handwritten notes, a list of potential suspects, and, finally, 
recommended follow-up. 

Investigators decided to test the rape kit for the existence of DNA. 
The kits were sent to the departments forensic lab and within 10 days 
the results came back positive for DNA. In addition, the results 
matched preexisting samples belonging to Terry Alvin Hyatt, who was 
serving time on North Carolinas death row for two first-degree homicide 
convictions; both involved female victims. 

Although Hyatt was on death row, he was also in the midst of an 
appeal process. Prosecutors presented their case to his attorneys and 
he agreed to plead to first degree homicide with a life-without-parole 
sentence, avoiding another death penalty conviction. 

Harris Teeter stayed true to its word and donated the $10,000 
reward to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Departments forensic 
lab.  

Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations  111 


The LVMPD and an increasing number of other departments use the 
Internet to publicize cases investigations. An e-mail address and local tip 
line are posted on the site. The vast majority of responses have been 
received through e-mail and run the gamut from inquiries and stories to 
serious tips. Tips are submitted by other law enforcement agency personnel, 
retired law enforcement personnel, friends and neighbors of victims, 
and of course family members. Detectives welcome the responses. Not 
only do the tips help them to prioritize cases, but they have also helped 
to reduce the number of open cases. 

Other Resources 

Those with experience in cold case investigations have found a number 
of allies in the community, in part because their agencies have worked 
diligently to implement programs consistent with community policing. 
The following steps are recommended to improve community relationships 
and enhance the departments ability to solve cold cases: 

 
Reach out to victim assistance and advocacy organizations. 
 
Reconnect with families of victims. 
 
Advertise for volunteers (media coverage might inspire them to offer 
assistance without prompting). 
 
Work with the prosecutors office. Apprise them of the cold case units 
development and progress. 
 
Nurture or develop a relationship with the U.S. Marshals Service liaison, 
who can assist with apprehending suspects in other states. 
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Childrens (NCMEC) 
Project ALERT (Americas Law Enforcement Retiree Team) program is 
also available to assist cold case units or law enforcement agencies with 
cold cases involving victims younger than 21 years old. 

The Project ALERT program uses retired law enforcement investigators 
who have been specially selected, trained, and certified. These 
Project ALERT representatives act as consultants and are deployed to 
law enforcement agencies across the nationfree of chargeto assist 

112  Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations 


investigators. As former criminal investigators, they bring a wealth of 
investigative experience, skills, and abilities to assist on these cases. 

The Project ALERT representatives also bring access to all of 
NCMECs other resources, including help with case management and 
crime analysis, specialized training, and poster distribution. NCMEC 
also has partnerships with experts in conducting searches for missing 
persons (such as NecroSearch, a nonprofit organization that specializes 
in the search for clandestine gravesites, and specialized canine groups) as 
well as professional forensic laboratories to assist with the evidentiary 
aspects of cold cases. 

Crime analysts are another resource that can assist cold case 
investigations. Database searches, link-analysis charts, timelines, and 
maps detailing the incident and the events, witnesses and locations associated 
with it, are tools that a crime analyst has expertise in using 
effectively. Analysts often maintain listservs as well, which are useful 
for communicating with and keeping abreast of what is happening 
in other jurisdictions. 

Evidence 

Investigators must possess patience, because cold cases are not without 
their challenges. Experienced cold case investigators often cite the following 
challenges concerning physical evidence: 

 
Collection and Analysis. In the past, investigators may not have 
collected the evidence needed to identify a suspect, because many of 
the tests used today did not exist years ago. Also, traditional methods 
of forensic analysis may have used all of the evidence in the original 
processing, so little or none may be left to analyze using the new 
technologies. 
 
Deterioration. Evidence may have deteriorated because of the passage 
of time and improper packaging and/or storage. 
 
Missing Evidence. It is not uncommon for evidence to be misplaced 
or lost during office moves, file purging, misplacement, and other 
accidents. 
Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations  113 


Consulting the Coroners Office3 

Detective Kevin Manning of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 
Departments (LVMPD) Cold Case Unit recently discovered this 
resource while investigating a case. In April 2006, a man contacted 
the department to inquire about the homicide of a former high school 
classmate that occurred in 1981. Manning pulled the file and discovered 
that a suspect had been arrested, but the case was dismissed. 
(The reason for dismissal was not detailed in the file.) He noticed that 
a sexual assault also occurred, so he visited the evidence vault to collect 
the rape kit. 

Unfortunately, he found no record of the evidence. He decided to 
consult the file once more, and that is when he read that vaginal 
swabs had been collected during the autopsy. At this point, he contacted 
the coroners office and discovered it still had the swabs in its 
possession. Detective Manning was able to obtain this evidence and 
submit it to the LVMPD DNA lab. He is now waiting for the results. In 
the meantime, the suspect was served an affidavit in Iowa, where he 
now resides. 

Evidence stored at the coroners office was helpful again when 
Detective Manning investigated a homicide that occurred in 1983. A 
teenage girl, home for Christmas break, went for a jog and never 
returned. Her body was found, with evidence indicating she had been 
raped and stabbed. In 1988, another woman was attacked in the same 
mannerbut after the rape she was able to escape and identify her 
assailant, who was subsequently arrested. Investigators believed that 
the same man committed the 1983 homicide, but when Manning went 
to the evidence room to obtain the sexual assault kit, he found that the 
kit had been purged. Once again, he contacted the coroners office, 
which had this case on file. Testing is now under way; the suspect 
remains in jail for the 1988 sexual assault conviction.  

3. Based on interviews in 2006 with Detective Manning of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 
Department. 
114  Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations 


If the evidence is lost, misplaced, or has deteriorated, one possible 
solution is to contact the coroners office. Agencies have discovered that 
the coroners office has often collected and stored its own evidence 
samples and are happy to assist with the investigation of a cold case. 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR 
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 

Although best practices for creating and maintaining a cold case unit 
have not been documented and published, numerous models are available 
to guide agencies. To create a cold case unit, the following factors 
should be considered: 

 
How many investigators can be spared from the existing homicide 
unit or other investigative units? 
 
Does the department have a recruitment program for civilian volunteers? 
 
Are there retired investigators who would be interested in joining the 
unit? 
 
What is the jurisdictions current homicide rate? 
 
How many unsolved cases are in the departments files? 
Taking stock of resources will help departments determine their next 
steps. If resources from the current homicide investigations team cannot 
be spared, departments may consider using the LVMPD Cold Case Unit 
as a model for staffing entirely with full-time retired personnel and civilian 
volunteers. Other models are available to fit the diverse needs of law 
enforcement agencies across the country. 

The most important factor of all is to consider how solving cold 
cases will benefit the department and the community it serves. According 
to Professor Cardarelli, the establishment of a cold case unit will 
accomplish the following: 

 
Solve homicides and lead to the prosecution of offenders 
 
Improve the departments clearance rate 
Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations  115 


 
Improve officer productivity 
 
Increase public confidence in law enforcement. 
Furthermore, cold case units personnel report a high level of personal 
satisfaction when they close a case. Unsolved homicides create deep 
feelings of loss and anger in the survivors of homicide victims, and by 
solving these homicides investigators can ease the suffering of survivors. 
Even when a case cannot be solved, the efforts of the investigator are 
often greatly appreciated by the friends and family of the victim. Establishing 
a cold case unit and rotating officers through it, therefore, could 
be a welcome and rewarding experience for police employees. 

CONCLUSION 

The rewards associated with the development of a cold case unit are significant. 
Case clearance rates increase, guilty parties are brought to justice, 
innocent parties are exonerated, victims survivors get a measure of 
relief, and investigators benefit from the personal satisfaction associated 
with solving cold cases. Police departments have achieved these benefits 
using a variety of organizational and staffing arrangements, depending 
on their resources and caseloads. Regardless of how a cold case unit is 
organized, the resounding message from those with experience is that as 
long as it is staffed with passionate, patient, and experienced investigators, 
it will be a successful endeavor. 

116  Chapter 7. Cold Case Investigations 


About the Authors 

JAMES M. CRONIN 

James M. Cronin is a Research Associate for PERFs Center on Force and 
Accountability. Since starting work at PERF in 2005, Mr. Cronin has 
become a member of the U.S. Department of Justices Less Lethal Working 
Group and has been actively involved in research concerning the use 
of conducted energy devices by law enforcement agencies. 

Prior to joining PERF, Cronin worked as a researcher for the Maryland 
Statistical Analysis Center, the Bureau of Governmental Research 
(HIDTA-High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas), the Washington, D.C., 
Sentencing Commission, and the D.C. Criminal Justice Coordinating 
Council. He has conducted research on juvenile delinquency prevention, 
homicide clearance rates, and the rehabilitation of offenders. He also 
assisted in establishing sentencing guidelines for the District of Columbia. 

Mr. Cronin received his master of arts degree in Criminology and 
Criminal Justice in 1994 from the University of Maryland. 

GERARD R. MURPHY 

Gerard Murphy serves as PERFs Director of Homeland Security and 
Development and oversees all PERF homeland security-related projects. 
In this capacity he manages a variety of research, management, and technical 
assistance projects focusing on law enforcement and homeland 
security. In addition, he oversees the development of ideas for new projects 
for PERF. 

In his 12 years at PERF, Mr. Murphy has directed a variety of research 
and technical assistance projects and has written or cowritten numerous 
PERF publications. One of his most recent publications is Managing a 
Multijurisdictional Case: Identifying the Lessons Learned from the Sniper 
Investigation. Mr. Murphy also spent 12 years with the Baltimore County 

About the Authors  117 


Police Department, holding the positions of Assistant to the Chief and 
Director of Planning and Research. 

Mr. Murphy holds a masters degree in policy sciences, has completed 
extensive work towards his doctorate in policy sciences, and is a graduate 
of the Federal Executive Institute. 

LISA L. SPAHR 

Lisa Spahr was an Associate for PERFs Center on Force and Accountability. 
She has more than 12 years of experience in research and development 
in law enforcement, corrections and law, and psychiatry. At PERF, 
Ms. Spahr managed multiple research projects, including the 2006 Critical 
Issues in Policing Series, patrol response to suicide bombing threats, 
redesigning an officer discipline system, and less-lethal weapons impact 
on injuries and liabilities. 

Prior to joining PERF, Ms. Spahr served as a Project Manager for the 
University of Pittsburgh, Law and Psychiatry Research Department. Ms. 
Spahr has also served as an adjunct faculty member, instructing in both 
law enforcement and psychology coursework, and has managed a community 
corrections facility in Philadelphia. 

Ms. Spahr received her bachelor of arts degree in psychology from 
Temple University, and a master of science degree in investigative psychology 
from the University of Liverpool, England. 

JESSICA I. TOLIVER 

Jessica Ingenito Toliver joined PERF as a Research Associate in April 
2005. Since arriving at PERF, she has been a contributing author for the 
Police Management of Mass Demonstration publication and the Improving 
the Response to Elder Abuse training curriculum for law enforcement 
agencies. Currently, she manages the Meth 360 program, a methamphetamine 
demand reduction strategy created by the Partnership for a 
Drug-Free America, sponsored by the COPS Office. 

Prior to joining PERF, she served as a Policy Analyst in the Homeland 
Security and Technology Division at the National Governors Association. 
Ms. Toliver also completed a fellowship for Governor Jennifer M. 
Granholms office in 2003, in which she conducted a cost-benefit analysis 
of the Michigan State Polices DNA forensic labs. 

118  About the Authors 


Ms. Toliver received her bachelors degree in political science and 
journalism from the University of Richmond and her masters degree in 
public policy from the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University 
of Michigan. 

RICHARD E. WEGER 

Richard Weger came to PERF from the San Jose Police Department on a 
6-month fellowship in the Center on Force and Accountability. 

Lieutenant Weger has served as a member of the San Jose, California, 
Police Department (SJPD) since 1990. He has worked Patrol, Youth Services, 
and Gang Investigations. He left SJPD when he was hired as a Special 
Agent with the FBI. Two years later, Mr. Weger returned home to the 
SJPD where he worked as a Field Training Officer and as a high-tech 
investigator. He also served as aide to Chief of Police Robert L. Davis. He 
continues to teach police academy recruits in a variety of subjects. 

Mr. Weger obtained his bachelors degree in the administration of 
justice from San Jose State University in 1993. 

About the Authors  119 


About the COPS Office 

THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES 
(the COPS Office) was created in 1994 and has the unique mission of 
directly serving the needs of state and local law enforcement. The COPS 
Office has been the driving force in advancing the concept of community 
policing and is responsible for one of the greatest infusions of resources 
into state, local, and tribal law enforcement in our nations history. 

Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $11.4 billion to 
add community policing officers to the nations streets, enhance crime 
fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and provide 
training and technical assistance to help advance community policing. 
COPS Office funding has furthered the advancement of community 
policing through community policing innovation conferences, the development 
of best practices, pilot community policing programs, and 
applied research and evaluation initiatives. The COPS Office has also 
positioned itself to respond directly to emerging law enforcement needs. 
Examples include working in partnership with departments to enhance 
police integrity, promoting safe schools, combating the methamphetamine 
drug problem, and supporting homeland security efforts. 

Through its grant programs, the COPS Office assists and encourages 
local, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies in enhancing their 
homeland security efforts using proven community policing strategies. 
Traditional COPS Office programs such as the Universal Hiring Program 
(UHP) give priority consideration to those applicants that demonstrate 
a use of funds related to terrorism preparedness or response through 
community policing. The COPS in Schools (CIS) program has a mandatory 
training component that includes topics on terrorism prevention, 
emergency response, and the critical role schools can play in community 
response. Finally, the COPS Office has implemented grant programs 
intended to develop interoperable voice and data communications networks 
among emergency response agencies that will assist in addressing 
local homeland security demands. 

About the COPS Office  121 


The COPS Office has made substantial investments in law enforcement 
training. The COPS Office created a national network of Regional 
Community Policing Institutes (RCPI) that are available to state and local 
law enforcement, elected officials, and community leaders for training 
opportunities on a wide range of community policing topics. Recently, 
the RCPIs have focused their efforts on developing and delivering homeland 
security training. In addition, the COPS Office has made a major 
investment in applied research, which makes possible the growing body 
of substantive knowledge covering all aspects of community policing. 

These substantial investments have produced a significant community 
policing infrastructure across the country as evidenced by the fact 
that at the present time, approximately 86 percent of the nations population 
is served by law enforcement agencies practicing community 
policing. The COPS Office continues to respond proactively by providing 
critical resources, training, and technical assistance to help state, 
local, and tribal law enforcement implement innovative and effective 
community policing strategies. 

122  About the COPS Office 


About PERF 

THE POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORUM (PERF) IS A NATIONAL 
organization of progressive law enforcement chief executives from city, 
county and state agencies who collectively serve more than half of the 
countrys population. Established in 1976 by 10 prominent police chiefs, 
PERF has evolved into one of the leading police think tanks. With membership 
from many of the larger police departments in the country and 
around the globe, PERF has pioneered studies in such fields as community 
and problem-oriented policing, racially biased policing, multijurisdictional 
investigations, domestic violence, law enforcement response to 
people with mental illnesses, homeland security, management concerns, 
use of force, and crime-reduction approaches. 

PERFs success is built on the active involvement of its members: 
police chiefs, superintendents, sheriffs, and other law enforcement leaders. 
The organization also has various types of membership that allow 
the organization to benefit from the diverse views of criminal justice 
researchers, law enforcement of all ranks, and others committed to 
advancing policing services to all communities. As a nonprofit organization, 
PERF is committed to the application of research in policing and to 
promoting innovation that will enhance the quality of life in our communities. 
PERFs objective is to improve the delivery of police services 
and the effectiveness of crime control through the exercise of strong 
national leadership, the public debate of criminal justice issues, the 
development of a body of research about policing, and the provision of 
vital management services to all police agencies. 

In addition to its cutting-edge research and management and technical 
assistance programs, PERF continues to work toward increased 
professionalism and excellence in the field through its training, leadership, 
and publications programs. For example, PERF sponsors the Senior 
Management Institute for Police (SMIP), conducts searches for communities 
seeking police chief executives, and publishes some of the leading 
literature in the law enforcement field that addresses the difficult issues 

About PERF  123 


that challenge todays police leaders. PERF publications are used for 
training and promotion exams and to inform police professionals about 
innovative approaches to community problems. The hallmark of the 
publications program is translating the latest research and thinking 
about a topic into police practices that can be tailored to the unique 
needs of a jurisdiction. 

124  About PERF 


APPENDIX A 

Conference Participants 

Police Executive Research Forum 
Homicide Investigations Conference 
May 2526, 2006 

Charlie Adams 
Sergeant 

Minneapolis Police Department 
350 S. 5th St., Room 130 
Minneapolis, MN 55415 
Charlie.Adams@ci.minneapolis.mn.us 
612.673.2941 

Michael Anzallo 
Commander 

Metropolitan (D.C.) Police 

Department 
300 Indiana Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20001 
michael.anzallo@dc.gov 
202.727.7787 

Andres Arostegui 
Detective 

Miami Police Department 
400 NW Second Avenue 
Miami, FL 33128 
andres.arostegui@miami-police.org 
305.579.6530 

Patricia Bailey 
Assistant District Attorney 

New York County District Attorneys 

Office 
1 Hogan Place 
New York, NY 10013 
baileyp@dany.nyc.gov 
212.335.4362 

Judith Beres 
Editor 

The COPS Office 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530 
judith.beres@usdoj.gov 
202.353.4010 

Karl Bickel 
Senior Policy Analyst 

The COPS Office 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530 
Karl.Bickel@usdoj.gov 
202.514.5914 

Appendix A. Conference Participants  125 


John Buhrmaster 
Lieutenant 

Miami Police Department 
400 NW Second Avenue 
Miami, FL 33128 
john.buhrmaster@miami-police.org 
305.579.6530 

Pam Cammarata 
Deputy Director 

COPS Office 
1100 Vermont Ave., NW, 10th Floor 
Washington, DC 20530 
Pam.Cammarata@usdoj.gov 
202.514.9193 

Al Cardarelli 
Senior Fellow 

McCormack Graduate School of 
Policy Studies, University of 
Massachusetts Boston 

100 Morrissey Boulevard 
Boston, MA 02125 
albert.cardarelli@verizon.net 
617.524.2588 

Alexander Casas 
Captain 

Miami Dade Police Department 
9105 NW 25 Street, Suite 2088 
Doral, FL 33172-1500 
acasas@mdpd.com 
305.471.2400 

Jason Cheney 
Research Assistant 

PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
jcheney@policeforum.org 
202.454.8331 

JungWon Choi 
Assistant General Counsel 

FBI 
jung.choi@ic.fbi.gov 
202.324.9625 

Daniel Coleman 
Deputy Superintendent 

Boston Police Department 
One Schroeder Plaza 
Boston, MA 02120 
Colemand.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us 
617.343.4470 

James Cronin 
Research Associate 

PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
jcronin@policeforum.org 
202.454.8319 

Milton Dale Brown 
Captain 

Houston Police Department 
1200 Travis, 6th Floor 
Houston, TX 77002 
Milton.Brown@cityofhouston.net 
713.308.3989 

Dr. Heather Davies 
Associate 

Strategic Analysis, Inc. 
One Virginia Square, 3601 Wilson 

Blvd., Suite 500 
Arlington, VA 22201 
hdavies@sainc.com 
703.276.2229 

John Davison 
Detective 

Dallas Police Department 
1400 S. Lamar St. 
Dallas, TX 75215 
john.davison@dpd.dallascityhall.com 
214.671.3687 

126  Appendix A. Conference Participants 


Jim Dillon 
Captain 

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 

Department 
400 Stewart Avenue 
Las Vegas, NV 89101 
j2239d@lvmpd.com 
702.229.3528 

James Doyle 
Director 

Center for Modern Forensic Practice, 

John Jay College of Criminal Justice 
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1405 
Boston, MA 02116 
james@truewitness.us 
617.338.5566 

Rod Drew 
Detective Superintendent 

New Zealand Police 
37 Observatory Circle 
Washington D.C. 20008 
Rod.drew@police.govt.nz 

Josh Ederheimer 
Director, Center on Force and 
Accountability 

PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
jederheimer@policeforum.org 
202.454.8317 

Anthony Ell 
Major 

Kansas City Police Department 
1125 Locust St. 
Kansas City, MO 64106 
aell@kcpd.org 
816.234.5211 

Michael J. Farrell 
Deputy Commissioner 

NYPD 
One Police Plaza, Room 1400 
New York, NY 10038 
mfarrell@nypd.org 
646.610.8534 

Larry Ford 
Assistant Director 

ATF 
650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW. 
Washington, DC 20226 
Allison.cibroski@atf.gov 
202.927.8500 

J. R. Francomano 
Assistant States Attorney 
Baltimore County States Attorneys 

Office 
401 Bosley Ave., Room 511 
Towson, MD 21204 
jfrancomano@co.ba.md.us 
410.887.6630 

Brad Garrett 
Special Agent 

FBI 
601 4th Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20535 
brad.garrett@earthlink.net 
202.278.2373 

Robert Giannelli 
Deputy Chief 

NYPD 
One Police Plaza, Room 1312 
New York, NY 10038 
robert.giannelli@nypd.org 
646.610.5430 

Appendix A. Conference Participants  127 


Tag Gleason 
Captain 

Seattle Police Department 
610 5th Ave., P.O. Box 34986 
Seattle, WA 98124 
GleasonT@Seattle.Gov 
206.684.5531 

Rudy Gonzalez 
Lieutenant 

Miami Dade Police Department 
9105 NW 25 Street, Suite 2088 
Doral, FL 33172-1500 
r_gonzalez01@mdpd.com 
305.471.2400 

Peter Grippi 
Sergeant 

Baltimore County Police Department 
700 East Joppa Road 
Towson, MD 21286-5501 
pgrippi@co.ba.md.us 
410.887.3943 

Mark Hanf 
Detective 

Seattle Police Department 
610 5th Ave., PO Box 34986 
Seattle, WA 98124 
HanfM@Seattle.Gov 
206.684.8034 

Shelia Hargis 
Crime Analysis Supervisor 

Austin Police Department 

P.O. Box 689001 
Austin, TX 78768-9001 
Shelia.Hargis@ci.austin.tx.us 
512.974.5951 
Ray Harp 
Director, Project ALERT 

National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children 
699 Prince Street 
Alexandria, VA 22314 
RHarp@NCMEC.ORG 
703.837.6219 

Robert Harrington 
Lt. Detective 

Boston Police Department 
One Schroeder Plaza 
Boston, MA 02120 
HarringtonR.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us 
617.343.4470 

Alan Harris 
Senior Assistant Hennepin County 

Attorney 
Hennepin County Attorneys Office 
C-2100 Hennepin County 

Government Center 
Minneapolis, MN 55487 
alan.harris@co.hennepin.mn.us 
612.348.2120 

Nannette Hegerty 
Chief 

Milwaukee Police Department 
749 W. State Street 
Milwaukee, WI 53233 
nheger@milwaukee.gov 
414.935.7200 

Maggie Heisler 
Senior Social Science Analyst 

National Institute of Justice 
810 7th Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20531 
Maggie.Heisler@usdoj.gov 
202.616.3452 

128  Appendix A. Conference Participants 


Charles Hoffman 
First Sergeant 

Prince William County Police 

Department 
15948 Donald Curtis Drive 
Woodbridge, VA 22191 
choffman@pwcgov.org 
703.792.6410 

Mitch Hollis 
Sergeant 

Montgomery County Police 

Department 
2350 Research Blvd. 
Rockville, MD 20850 
mitchell.hollis@montgomerycounty 

md.gov 
240.773.5070 

Rick Jackson 
Detective 

LAPD 
150 North Los Angeles St., Room 321 
Los Angeles, CA 90012 
rjackson187@msn.com 
213.847.0970 

Dennis Keane 
Lieutenant 

Chicago Police Department 
3510 South Michigan Avenue 
Chicago, IL 60653 
Dennis.Keane@chicagopolice.org 
312.747.8272 

Tim Keel 
Major Case Specialist 

FBI-NCAVC, Behavioral Analysis Unit 
FBI Academy 
Quantico, VA 22135 
tgkeel@fbiacademy.edu 
703.632.4345 

Alan Knox 
Crime Analyst 

Minneapolis Police Department 
350 S. 5th St., Room 130 
Minneapolis, MN 55415 
Alan.Knox@ci.minneapolis.mn.us 
612.673.2941 

Irvin Litofsky 
Director, Forensic Services Section 

Baltimore County Police Department 
700 East Joppa Road 
Towson, MD 21286-5501 
ilitofsky@co.ba.md.us 
410.887.2290 

Maria Maher 
Chief of Detective Division 

Chicago Police Department 
3510 South Michigan Avenue 
Chicago, IL 60653 
Maria.Maher@chicagopolice.org 
312.745.6016 

Lisa Mangum 
Sergeant 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police 

Department 
601 East Trade Street 
Charlotte, NC 28202 
mmangum@cmpd.org 
704.336.2294 

Walter Martin 
Assistant Chief 

Detroit Police Department 
1300 Beaubien, Suite, 318 
Detroit MI, 48226 
martinw476@dpdhq.ci.detroit.mi.us 
313.596.6116 

Appendix A. Conference Participants  129 


Paul Masterson 
Detective 

Prince William County Police 

Department 
15948 Donald Curtis Drive 
Woodbridge, VA 22191 
pmasterson@pwcgov.org 
703.792.7279 

Sheri Mecklenburg 

Director of Illinois Pilot Program on 
Eyewitness Identification/General 
Counsel to Superintendent, 
Chicago Police Department 

Chicago Police Department 
3510 South Michigan Avenue 
Chicago, IL 60653 
sheri.mecklenburg@chicagopolice.org 
312.745.6115 

Lois Mock 
Senior Social Science Analyst 

National Institute of Justice 
810 7th Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20531 
Lois.Mock@usdoj.gov 
202.307.0693 

Michel Moore 
Deputy Chief 

LAPD 
11121 North Sepulveda Blvd. 
Mission Hills, CA 91345 
mooremi@lapd.lacity.org 
818.838.9465 

C. Verro Morris 
Captain 
Metropolitan (DC) Police 

Department 
3244 Pennsylvania Ave., SE 
Washington, DC 20032 
charles.morris@dc.gov 
202.645.6363 

Jerry Murphy 
Director, Homeland Security and 
Development 

PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
gmurphy@policeforum.org 
202.454.8314 

Dana Murphy 
Director of Communications 

PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
dmurphy@policeforum.org 
202.454.8332 

Rebecca Neuburger 
Membership Administrator 

PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
rneuburger@policeforum.org 
202.454.8300 

Dr. Mallory OBrien 
Project Director 

Milwaukee Homicide Review 
Commission, Harvard Injury 
Control Research Center 

2501 E. Menlo Boulevard 
Milwaukee, WI 53211 
mobrien@hsph.harvard.edu 
414.935.7614 

Brian OKeefe 
Deputy Chief 

Milwaukee Police Department 
749 W. State Street 
Milwaukee, WI 53233 
bokeef@milwaukee.gov 
414.935.7300 

130  Appendix A. Conference Participants 


Cynthia Pappas 
Senior Social Science Analyst 

The COPS Office 
1100 Vermont Ave., NW 
Washington, DC 20530 
Cynthia.pappas@usdoj.gov 
202.514.8252 

Robert Parker 
Sergeant 

Metropolitan (DC) Police 

Department 
3244 Pennsylvania Ave., SE 
Washington DC 20032 
robert.parker@dc.gov 
202.645.6363 

Alison Pastor 
Intern 

PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
apastor@policeforum.org 
202.454.8315 

Anthony Patterson 
Detective 

Metropolitan (DC) Police 

Department 
3244 Pennsylvania Ave., SE 
Washington DC 20032 
Anthony.Patterson@dc.gov 
202.645.6363 

Carl Peed 
Director 

COPS Office 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530 
carl.peed@usdoj.gov 
202.616.2888 

Jonathyn Priest 
Lieutenant 

Denver Police Department 
1331 Cherokee St. 
Denver, CO 80204 
Jonathyn.Priest@ci.denver.co.us 
720.913.6697 

Pete Ramirez 
Sergeant 

San Jose Police Department 
201 West Mission St. 
San Jose, CA 95110 
pete.ramirez@sanjoseca.gov 
408.277.5283 

Corey Ray 
Public Liaison Specialist 

The COPS Office 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530 
corey.ray@usdoj.gov 
202.514.5328 

Winnie Reed 
Acting Chief, Crime Control and 
Prevention Division 

National Institute of Justice 
810 7th Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20531 
Winnie.Reed@usdoj.gov 
202.307.2952 

Alfredo Saldana 
Deputy Chief 

Dallas Police Department 
1400 S. Lamar St. 
Dallas, TX 75215 
alfredo.saldana@dpd.dallascityhall.com 
214.671.3581 

Appendix A. Conference Participants  131 


Amy Schapiro 
Senior Social Science Analyst 

The COPS Office 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW, 10th 

Floor 
Washington, DC 20530 
amy.schapiro@usdoj.gov 
202.514.8721 

Glenn Schmitt 
Director 

National Institute of Justice 
810 7th Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20531 
Glenn.Schmitt@usdoj.gov 
202.307.2942 

John Sheridan 
Sergeant 

Montgomery County Police 

Department 
2350 Research Blvd. 
Rockville, MD 20850 
john.sheridan@montgomerycounty 

md.gov 
240.773.5070 

Murray Smith 
Lieutenant 

Houston Police Department 
1200 Travis, 6th Floor 
Houston, TX 77002 
Murray.Smith@cityofhouston.net 
713.308.3922 

Lisa Spahr 
Research Associate 

PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
lspahr@policeforum.org 
202.454.8343 

Richard Stanek 
Captain 

Minneapolis Police Department 
350 S. 5th St., Room 130 
Minneapolis, MN 55415 
Richard.Stanek@ci.minneapolis.mn.us 
612.673.2218 

Melissa Staples 
Lieutenant 

Chicago Police Department 
3315 W. Ogden 
Chicago, IL 60623 
melissa.staples@chicagopolice.org 
312.747.7220 

Nancy Steblay 
Professor 

Augsburg College 
Campus Box 32, 2211 Riverside 

Avenue 
Minneapolis MN 55454 
steblay@augsburg.edu 
612.330.1201 

Stephanie Stoiloff 
Senior Police Bureau Commander 

Miami Dade Police Department 
9105 NW 25 Street, Suite 2154 
Doral, FL 33172-1500 
sstoiloff@mdpd.com 
305.471.2050 

Mike Thaler 
Executive Assistant Chief 

Houston Police Department 
1200 Travis, 6th Floor 
Houston, TX 77002 
mike.thaler@cityofhouston.net 
713.308.1572 

132  Appendix A. Conference Participants 


Jessica Toliver 
Research Associate 

PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
jtoliver@policeforum.org 
202.454.8344 

Jim Trainum 
Detective 

Metropolitan (DC) Police 

Department/OSD 
300 Indiana Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20001 
james.trainum@dc.gov 
202.727.5037 

Louis Vega 
Assistant Chief 

Miami Police Department 
400 NW Second Avenue 
Miami, FL 33128 
louis.vega@miami-police.org 
305.579.6521 

Ron Waldrop 
Assistant Chief 

Dallas Police Department 
1400 S. Lamar St. 
Dallas, TX 75215 
ronald.waldrop@dpd.dallascityhall.com 
214.671.3912 

John Wallace 
Detective 

Fairfax County Police Department 
4100 Chain Bridge Road 
Fairfax, VA 22030 
John.Wallace@fairfaxcounty.gov 
703.246.7597 

Rick Weger 
Sergeant/PERF Fellow 

San Jose Police Department/PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
rweger@policeforum.org 
202.454.8304 

Charles Wellford 
Professor 

University of Maryland 
2220 Le Frak Hall 
College Park, MD 20742 
cwellford@crim.umd.edu 
301.405.4701 

Chuck Wexler 
Executive Director 

PERF 
1120 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
cwexler@policeforum.org 
202.466.7820 

Nina Wright 
Deputy Chief 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police 

Department 
601 East Trade Street 
Charlotte, NC 28202 
nwright@cmpd.org 
704.336.2345 

Jim Young 
Sergeant 

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 

Department 
400 Stewart Avenue 
Las Vegas, NV 89101 
j3166y@lvmpd.com 
702.812.0117 

Appendix A. Conference Participants  133 


Rick Zimmerman Paul Zinkann III 
Sergeant Captain 
Minneapolis Police Department Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police 
350 S. 5th St., Room 130 Department 
Minneapolis, MN 55415 601 East Trade Street 
Richard.Zimmerman@ci.minneapolis. Charlotte, NC 28202 
mn.us pzinkann1@cmpd.org 
612.673.2941 704.336.6873 

134  Appendix A. Conference Participants 


APPENDIX B 

External Resources 
and Strategies for 
Homicide Units 

VIOLENT CRIMINAL APPREHENSION PROGRAM 
(VICAP) 

ViCAP is a national database on crimes of violence. ViCAP's mission is 
to facilitate cooperation, communication, and coordination between law 
enforcement agencies and provide support in their efforts to investigate, 
identify, track, apprehend, and prosecute violent serial offenders. The 
FBI provides the software to state and local law enforcement agencies, 
allowing them to connect to the ViCAP database. ViCAP detects common 
characteristics of the homicide and similar patterns of modus 
operandi, allowing ViCAP personnel to pinpoint those crimes that 
potentially have been committed by the same offender. When patterns 
are found, involved law enforcement agencies are notified of the results 
so they may pursue the information for lead value. 

Detective Jim Trainum of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police 
Department has used ViCAP extensively and speaks favorably of the program. 
He did, however, point out that collecting and inputting data is 
time consuming. Detective Trainum uses funding from backlog reduction 
grants and college interns to input ViCAP data. ViCAP is currently 
being used to investigate serial sexual assaults and homicides in Washington 
D.C.* 

*Trainum, J. Violent Criminal Apprehension Team and the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police 
Department. Detective Trainums remarks at the Police Executive Research Forum Homicide 
Conference, Washington, D.C., May 2006. 

Appendix B. External Resources and Strategies for Homicide Units  135 


PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS (PSN) 

PSN is a nationwide program to reduce gun violence in America by networking 
existing local programs and providing these programs with additional 
resources. PSN funding, which is provided by the National Institute 
of Justice, is being used to hire new federal and state prosecutors, support 
investigators, provide training, distribute gun lock safety kits, deter juvenile 
gun crime, and develop and promote community outreach efforts as 
well as to support other gun violence reduction strategies. 

VIOLENT CRIME IMPACT TEAM (VCIT) 

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives created VCITs 
in 15 U.S. communities. VCIT works in conjunction with Project Safe 
Neighborhoods, building on the success of PSN, but adding additional 
resources to the targeted cities. This initiative has placed teams of federal, 
state, and local law enforcement officers and prosecutors in each 
selected city. The goal of the program is to identify and arrest the most 
violent offenders in each city. The VCIT initiative takes a six-point 
approach to reducing violent crime: 

1. Use technology and human intelligence to identify geographic areas 
within the targeted cities with violent firearms crime. 
2. Identify and target the worst violent offenders, the criminal organizations 
that support them, and determine how many are career criminals. 
3. Use criminal investigations as well as investigative tools and resources 
to disrupt and dismantle criminal activity being perpetrated by the 
targeted individuals and organizations. 
4. Arrest and prosecute the targeted individuals and their associates in 
the federal or state jurisdiction that lends itself to the most appropriate 
penalty. 
5. Work with community leaders to cultivate solid and sustained commitment 
between the community's residents and law enforcement. 
6. Evaluate results on a monthly basis to assess VCIT progress toward 
achieving the initiative's goals. 
136  Appendix B. External Resources and Strategies for Homicide Units 


APPENDIX C 

Guidelines for 
Preparing and Conducting 
Photo and Live Lineup 
Identification Procedures 

State of New Jersey 

DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY 
Seal of the State of New Jersey

DONALD T. OFFICE OF THE JOHN J. 
DIFRANCESCO ATTORNEY GENERAL FARMER, JR. 
Acting Governor PO Box 080 Attorney General 
TRENTON, NJ 08625-008 
(609) 292-4925 

April 18, 2001 
TO: ALL COUNTY PROSECUTORS 
COL. CARSON J. DUNBAR, JR., SUPERINTENDENT, NJSP 
ALL POLICE CHIEFS 
ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT CHIEF EXECUTIVES 

Re: Attorney General Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo 
and Live Lineup Identification Procedures 
It is axiomatic that eyewitness identification evidence is often crucial in 

identifying perpetrators and exonerating the innocent. However, recent 
cases, in which DNA evidence has been utilized to exonerate individuals 

Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures  137 


convicted almost exclusively on the basis of eyewitness identifications, 
demonstrate that this evidence is not fool-proof. In one 1998 study of 
DNA exoneration cases, ninety percent of the cases analyzed involved 
one or more mistaken eyewitness identifications.1 

The attached Attorney General Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting 
Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures, which incorporate 
more than 20 years of scientific research on memory and interview techniques, 
will improve the eyewitness identification process in New Jersey 
to ensure that the criminal justice system will fairly and effectively elicit 
accurate and reliable eyewitness evidence. These Guidelines apply to 
both adult and juvenile cases. With these Guidelines, New Jersey will 
become the first state in the Nation to officially adopt the recommendations 
issued by the United States Department of Justice in its Eyewitness 
Evidence Guidelines. 

Components of these Guidelines are already being utilized by many 
of our law enforcement officers, such as instructing witnesses prior to 
lineups or photo identifications that a perpetrator may not be among 
those in a lineup or photo spread and, therefore, the witness should not 
feel compelled to make an identification. Two procedural recommendations 
contained in these Guidelines are particularly significant and will 
represent the primary area of change for most law enforcement agencies. 
The first advises agencies to utilize, whenever practical, someone other 
than the primary investigator assigned to a case to conduct both photo 
and live lineup identifications. The individual conducting the photo or 
live lineup identification should not know the identity of the actual suspect. 
This provision of the Guidelines is not intended to question the 
expertise, integrity or dedication of primary investigators working their 
cases. Rather, it acknowledges years of research which concludes that 
even when utilizing precautions to avoid any inadvertent body signals or 
cues to witnesses, these gestures do occur when the identity of the actual 
suspect is known to the individual conducting the identification procedure. 
This provision of the Guidelines eliminates unintentional verbal 

1. Of 40 cases analyzed, 36 of the subsequent exonerations involved convictions that were based 
on one or more erroneous eyewitness identifications. Wells, G.L., M. Small, S.D. Penrod, R.S. 
Malpass, S.M. Fulero, and C.A.E. Brimacombe. Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations 
for Lineups and Photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 6. 1998. 
138  Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures 


and body cues which may adversely impact a witness ability to make a 
reliable identification. 

I recognize that this is a significant change from current practice that 
will not be possible or practical in every case. When it is not possible in 
a given case to conduct a lineup or photo array with an independent 
investigator, the primary investigator must exercise extreme caution to 
avoid any inadvertent signaling to a witness of a correct response which 
may provide a witness with a false sense of confidence if they have made 
an erroneous identification. Studies have established that the confidence 
level that witnesses demonstrate regarding their identifications is the primary 
determinant of whether jurors accept identifications as accurate 
and reliable.2 Technological tools, such as computer programs that can 
run photo lineups and record witness identifications independent of the 
presence of an investigator, as well as departmental training of a broader 
range of agency personnel to conduct lineups and photo identifications 
may also assist agencies and departments with staff and budget 
constraints in implementing this recommendation. 

The Guidelines also recommend that, when possible, sequential 
lineups should be utilized for both photo and live lineup identifications. 
Sequential lineups are conducted by displaying one photo or one person 
at a time to the witness. Scientific studies have also proven that witnesses 
have a tendency to compare one member of a lineup to another, 
making relative judgments about which individual looks most like the 
perpetrator. This relative judgment process explains why witnesses 
sometimes mistakenly pick someone out of a lineup when the actual perpetrator 
is not even present. Showing a witness one photo or one person 
at a time, rather than simultaneously, permits the witness to make an 
identification based on each persons appearance before viewing another 
photo or lineup member. Scientific data has illustrated that this 
method produces a lower rate of mistaken identifications.3 If use of this 
method is not possible in a given case or department, the Guidelines also 

2. Cutler, B.L., and S.D. Penrod. Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology, and the 
Law, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995; Wells, G.L. and Bradfield, A.L., Distortions 
in Eyewitness Recollections: Can the Post-identification Feedback Effect be Moderated?, Psychological 
Science, 1999. 
3. Wells, G.L., M. Small, S.D. Penrod, R.S. Malpass, S.M. Fulero, and C.A.E. Brimacombe. 
Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads. 
Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 6., 1998. 
Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures  139 


provide recommendations for conducting simultaneous photo and live 
lineup identifications. 

Although the Guidelines are fairly self-explanatory, their implementation 
will require a steep learning curve. To that end, training will be 
conducted. To accommodate appropriate training, the Guidelines will 
become effective within 180 days of the date of this letter. However, I 
would encourage you to implement the Guidelines sooner, if possible. I 
am requesting that each County Prosecutor designate key law enforcement 
personnel and police training coordinators to work with the Division 
of Criminal Justice to train your staff as well as the local law 
enforcement agencies within your jurisdiction. 

While it is clear that current eyewitness identification procedures 
fully comport with federal and state constitutional requirements, the 
adoption of these Guidelines will enhance the accuracy and reliability of 
eyewitness identifications and will strengthen prosecutions in cases that 
rely heavily, or solely, on eyewitness evidence. The issuance of these 
Guidelines should in no way be used to imply that identifications made 
without these procedures are inadmissible or otherwise in error. Your 
cooperation is appreciated as all members of our law enforcement community 
strive to implement these procedures. Should you have any questions 
regarding the implementation of these Guidelines, please contact 
the Division of Criminal Justice, Prosecutors & Police Bureau, at (609) 
984-2814. 

Very truly yours, 

John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General 

Attachment 

cc: Director Kathryn Flicker Chief of Staff Debra L. Stone Deputy Director Wayne S. 
Fisher, Ph.D. Deputy Director Anthony J. Zarrillo, Jr. Chief State Investigator John A. 
Cocklin SDAG Charles M. Grinnell, Acting Chief, Prosecutors & Police Bureau. 
140  Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures 


ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR 
PREPARING AND CONDUCTING 
PHOTO AND LIVE LINEUP 
IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES 

PREAMBLE 

While it is clear that current eyewitness identification procedures fully 
comport with federal and state constitutional requirements, that does 
not mean that these procedures cannot be improved upon. Both case law 
and recent studies have called into question the accuracy of some eyewitness 
identifications. The Attorney General, recognizing that his primary 
duty is to ensure that justice is done and the criminal justice system is 
fairly administered, is therefore promulgating these guidelines as best 
practices to ensure that identification procedures in this state minimize 
the chance of misidentification of a suspect. 

I. COMPOSING THE 
PHOTO OR LIVE LINEUP 
The following procedures will result in the composition of a photo or 
live lineup in which a suspect does not unduly stand out. An identification 
obtained through a lineup composed in this manner should minimize 
any risk of misidentification and have stronger evidentiary value 
than one obtained without these procedures. 

A. In order to ensure that inadvertent verbal cues or body language do 
not impact on a witness, whenever practical, considering the time of day, 
day of the week, and other personnel conditions within the agency or 
department, the person conducting the photo or live lineup identification 
procedure should be someone other than the primary investigator 
assigned to the case. The Attorney General recognizes that in many 
departments, depending upon the size and other assignments of personnel, 
this may be impossible in a given case. In those cases where the primary 
investigating officer conducts the photo or live lineup 
identification procedure, he or she should be careful to avoid inadvertent 
signaling to the witness of the correct response. 
Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures  141 


B. The witness should be instructed prior to the photo or live lineup 
identification procedure that the perpetrator may not be among those in 
the photo array or live lineup and, therefore, they should not feel compelled 
to make an identification. 
C. When possible, photo or live lineup identification procedures should 
be conducted sequentially, i.e., showing one photo or one person at a 
time to the witness, rather than simultaneously. 
D. In composing a photo or live lineup, the person administering the 
identification procedure should ensure that the lineup is comprised in 
such a manner that the suspect does not unduly stand out. However, 
complete uniformity of features is not required. 
E. Photo Lineup. In composing a photo lineup, the lineup administrator 
or investigator should: 
1. Include only one suspect in each identification procedure. 
2. Select fillers (nonsuspects) who generally fit the witness description 
of the perpetrator. When there is a limited or inadequate description 
of the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of 
the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, 
fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features. 
3. Select a photo that resembles the suspects description or appearance 
at the time of the incident if multiple photos of the suspect are reasonably 
available to the investigator. 
4. Include a 
minimum of five fillers (nonsuspects) per identification 
procedure. 
5. Consider placing the suspect in different positions in each lineup 
when conducting more than one lineup for a case due to multiple 
witnesses. 
6. Avoid reusing fillers in lineups shown to the same witness when showing 
a new suspect. 
7. Ensure that no writings or information concerning previous arrest(s) 
will be visible to the witness. 
142  Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures 


8. View the array, once completed, to ensure that the suspect does not 
unduly stand out. 
9. Preserve the presentation order of the photo lineup. In addition, the 
photos themselves should be preserved in their original condition. 
F. Live Lineups. In composing a live lineup, the lineup administrator or 
investigator should: 
1. Include only one suspect in each identification procedure. 
1. Select fillers (nonsuspects) who generally fit the witness description 
of the perpetrator. When there is a limited or inadequate description of 
the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of the 
perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, 
fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features. 
2. Consider placing the suspect in different positions in each lineup 
when conducting more than one lineup for a case due to multiple 
witnesses. 
3. Include a 
minimum of four fillers (nonsuspects) per identification 
procedure. 
4. Avoid reusing fillers in lineups shown to the same witness when showing 
a new suspect. 
II. CONDUCTING THE 
IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE 

The identification procedure should be conducted in a manner that promotes 
the accuracy, reliability, fairness and objectivity of the witness 
identification. These steps are designed to ensure the accuracy of identification 
or nonidentification decisions. 

A. Simultaneous Photo Lineup: When presenting a simultaneous photo 
lineup, the lineup administrator or investigator should: 
1. Provide viewing instructions to the witness as outlined in subsection 
I B, above. 
2. Confirm that the witness understands the nature of the lineup procedure. 
Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures  143 


3. Avoid saying anything to the witness that may influence the witness 
selection. 
4. If an identification is made, avoid reporting to the witness any information 
regarding the individual he or she has selected prior to obtaining 
the witness statement of certainty. 
5. Record any identification results and witness statement of certainty as 
outlined in subsection II E, Recording Identification Results. 
1. Document in writing the lineup procedure, including: 
1. Identification information and sources of all photos used. 
2. Names of all persons present at the photo lineup. 
3. Date and time of the identification procedure. 
6. Instruct the witness not to discuss the identification procedure or its 
results with other witnesses involved in the case and discourage contact 
with the media. 
B. Sequential Photo Lineup: When presenting a sequential photo lineup, 
the lineup administrator or investigator should: 
1. Provide viewing instructions to the witness as outlined in subsection 
I B, above. 
1. Provide the following additional viewing instructions to the witness: 
1. Individual photographs will be viewed one at a time. 
2. The photos are in random order. 
3. Take as much time as needed in making a decision about each 
photo before moving to the next one. 
4. All photos will be shown, even if an identification is made prior to 
viewing all photos; or the procedure will be stopped at the point 
of an identification (consistent with jurisdictional/departmental 
procedures). 
2. Confirm that the witness understands the nature of the sequential 
procedure. 
3. Present each photo to the witness separately, in a previously determined 
order, removing those previously shown. 
144  Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures 


4. Avoid saying anything to the witness that may influence the witness 
selection. 
5. If an identification is made, avoid reporting to the witness any information 
regarding the individual he or she has selected prior to obtaining 
the witness statement of certainty. 
6. Record any identification results and witness statement of certainty as 
outlined in subsection II E, Recording Identification Results. 
1. Document in writing the lineup procedure, including: 
1. Identification information and sources of all photos used. 
2. Names of all persons present at the photo lineup. 
3. Date and time of the identification procedure. 
7. Instruct the witness not to discuss the identification procedure or its 
results with other witnesses involved in the case and discourage contact 
with the media. 
C. Simultaneous Live Lineup: When presenting a simultaneous live 
lineup, the lineup administrator or investigator should: 
1. Provide viewing instructions to the witness as outlined in subsection 
I B, above. 
2. Instruct all those present at the lineup not to suggest in any way the 
position or identity of the suspect in the lineup. 
3. Ensure that any identification actions (e.g., speaking, moving, etc.) are 
performed by all members of the lineup. 
4. Avoid saying anything to the witness that may influence the witness 
selection. 
5. If an identification is made, avoid reporting to the witness any information 
regarding the individual he or she has selected prior to obtaining 
the witness statement of certainty. 
6. Record any identification results and witness statement of certainty as 
outlined in subsection II E, Recording Identification Results. 
1. Document in writing the lineup procedure, including: 
1. Identification information of lineup participants. 
Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures  145 


2. Names of all persons present at the lineup. 
3. Date and time of the identification procedure. 
7. Document the lineup by photo or video. This documentation should 
be of a quality that represents the lineup clearly and fairly. 
8. Instruct the witness not to discuss the identification procedure or its 
results with other witnesses involved in the case and discourage contact 
with the media. 
D. Sequential Live Lineup: When presenting a sequential live lineup, the 
lineup administrator or investigator should: 
1. Provide viewing instructions to the witness as outlined in subsection 
I B, above. 
1. Provide the following additional viewing instructions to the witness: 
1. Individuals will be viewed one at a time. 
2. The individuals will be presented in random order. 
3. Take as much time as needed in making a decision about each 
individual before moving to the next one. 
4. If the person who committed the crime is present, identify him 
or her. 
5. All individuals will be presented, even if an identification is made 
prior to viewing all the individuals; or the procedure will be stopped 
at the point of an identification (consistent with jurisdictional/ 
departmental procedures). 
2. Begin with all lineup participants out of the view of the witness. 
3. Instruct all those present at the lineup not to suggest in any way the 
position or identity of the suspect in the lineup. 
4. Present each individual to the witness separately, in a previously 
determined order, removing those previously shown. 
5. Ensure that any identification action (e.g., speaking, moving, etc.) are 
performed by all members of the lineup. 
6. Avoid saying anything to the witness that may influence the witness 
selection. 
146  Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures 


7. If an identification is made, avoid reporting to the witness any information 
regarding the individual he or she has selected prior to obtaining 
the witness statement of certainty. 
8. Record any identification results and witness statement of certainty as 
outlined in subsection II E, Recording Identification Results. 
1. Document in writing the lineup procedure, including: 
1. Identification information of lineup participants. 
2. Names of all persons present at the lineup. 
3. Date and time the identification procedure was conducted. 
9. Document the lineup by photo or video. This documentation should 
be of a quality that represents the lineup clearly and fairly. Photo documentation 
can either depict the group or each individual. 
10. Instruct the witness not to discuss the identification procedure or its 
results with other witnesses involved in the case and discourage contact 
with the media. 
E. Recording Identification Results: When conducting an identification 
procedure, the lineup administrator or investigator shall preserve the 
outcome of the procedure by documenting any identification or non-
identification results obtained from the witness. Preparing a complete 
and accurate record of the outcome of the identification procedure is 
crucial. This record can be a critical document in the investigation and 
any subsequent court proceedings. When conducting an identification 
procedure, the lineup administrator or investigator should: 
1. Record both identification and nonidentification results in writing, 
including the witness own words regarding how sure he or she is. 
2. Ensure that the results are signed and dated by the witness. 
3. Ensure that no materials indicating previous identification results are 
visible to the witness. 
4. Ensure that the witness does not write on or mark any materials that 
will be used in other identification procedures. 
Dated: April 18, 2001, effective no later than the 180th day from this 
date. 

Appendix C. Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures  147 


APPENDIX D 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police 
Department Eyewitness 
Identification Procedures 

DIRECTIVES Photographic Lineup Procedure 500-009 1 of 7 
Effective Date 03/24/06 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department 
Interactive Directives Guide 

I. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this directive is to provide guidelines for preparing a 
non-suggestive photographic or body lineup for the purposes of eyewitness 
identification of a suspect involved in a police investigation. 

II. POLICY 
A lineup will be prepared in such a way that the suspect in the case does 
not unduly stand out from the other photographs or individuals in the 
lineup, in order to ensure reliable and accurate identifications. All personnel 
shall follow this policy when conducting photographic lineups. 

III. DEFINITIONS 
A. Sequential photographic lineup: An array of photographs, including 
the suspect and five (5) individuals who are similar in appearance, that 
are presented one at a time to a witness for identification purposes. The 
sequential lineup is the preferred method of presenting photographic 
Appendix D. Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD Eyewitness Identification Procedures  149 


lineups and will be used whenever a suitable array of photographs can be 
arranged in such a manner and can be presented by an independent 
administrator. 

B. Simultaneous photographic lineup: A computer-generated array of 
photographs of individuals that includes the suspect and five (5) individuals 
who are similar in appearance that is presented on a single sheet of 
paper to a witness for identification purposes. A simultaneous lineup 
will be used whenever an independent administrator is not available or 
the circumstances are such that a sequential lineup cannot reasonably be 
utilized. An officer must obtain the approval of a supervisor before 
administering a simultaneous lineup. 
C. Independent Administrator: An officer who does not know the identity 
of the suspect who has been placed in a sequential photographic 
lineup or a body lineup by the case investigator. An independent administrator 
will be used to administer a sequential photographic lineup 
whenever possible and will always be used to administer a body lineup. 
D. Body lineup: A non-suggestive display of individuals that includes the 
suspect and five (5) individuals who are similar in appearance and who 
are presented one at a time to a witness for identification purposes; often 
referred to as a physical or live lineup. 
E. Fillers: Individuals or photographs of individuals that resemble the 
suspect that are used to fill in a lineup. A minimum of five (5) fillers will 
be used with any simultaneous or sequential lineup. Individuals who are 
suspects in the same case may not be used as fillers. 
F. Witness: A person, including a victim, who views a photographic or 
body lineup. 
IV. PROCEDURE 
A. Sequential Photographic Lineup. 
A sequential lineup will be the preferred method of preparing and presenting 
a photographic lineup. Photographs may be generated using the 
CMPD mugshot system. A sequential lineup will also be used when the 
officer cannot prepare a lineup from the CMPD mug shot system and 

150  Appendix D. Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD Eyewitness Identification Procedures 


must rely upon photographs from outside sources. These sources may 
include yearbook photographs, Department of Motor Vehicles photographs 
or other sources providing photographs that are not compatible 
with conducting a simultaneous lineup. The officer will follow the guidelines 
listed below in creating the lineup in order to ensure that the suspect 
does not unduly stand out from the filler photographs used. 

1. Only one suspect will be included in each lineup. 
2. The suspect will not be placed in the first position of any lineup. The 
other members of the lineup will be placed randomly in the lineup. To 
the extent possible, the officer will place the suspect in different positions 
in each lineup when lineups will be shown to multiple witnesses 
in the same case. 
3. The officer will select fillers who generally fit the witness description 
of the perpetrator. When there is a limited or inadequate description 
of the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of 
the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, 
fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features. 
4. The lineup should maintain a consistent similarity of appearance 
between the suspect and fillers with respect to any unique or unusual 
features such as scars or tattoos. 
5. Complete uniformity of features is not required. The officer may 
avoid using fillers who so closely resemble the suspect that a person 
familiar with the suspect might find it difficult to distinguish the suspect 
from the fillers. 
6. The officer will ensure that no writings or information concerning 
previous arrests or identifications will be visible to the witness on any 
lineup. 
7. The officer will view the lineup once it is completed to ensure that the 
suspect does not unduly stand out and appears only once in the lineup. 
8. Photographs will be shown to the witness one at a time by an independent 
administrator. If an independent administrator cannot be 
used, the case investigator will prepare a simultaneous lineup. 
Appendix D. Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD Eyewitness Identification Procedures  151 


9. The officer will show the witness all of the photographs in the lineup, 
even if the witness makes an identification early in the procedure. 
10. If the witness requests to see a specific photo after being shown the 
entire array, the officer will show the entire array to the witness again, 
in the same order in which it was initially presented. 
11. If the nature of the photographs will not allow for a simultaneous 
presentation and an independent administrator is not used, the case 
investigator may present the sequential lineup and must exercise 
extreme caution to avoid inadvertent signaling to the witness of the 
correct response. 
12. When showing a lineup with a different suspect, the officer will not 
use the same fillers used in previous lineups shown to the same witness. 
B. Simultaneous Photographic Lineup. 
A simultaneous lineup may only be conducted with a supervisors 
approval. The officer should document the need to conduct a simultaneous 
lineup and the approving supervisor in a supplement. A simultaneous 
lineup will be constructed using photographs available from the 
CMPDs mug shot system. If a viable photo of the suspect is not available 
in the CMPD system, a lineup may be generated using other sources that 
provide similar photographs of every individual to be used in the array. 
A lineup consisting of photographs provided by other agencies or data 
sources will be utilized only if it satisfies this directives requirement of 
fairness and reliability. In composing a photographic lineup, the officer 
will adhere to the following guidelines: 

1. Only one suspect will be included in each lineup. 
2. The suspect will not be placed in the first position of any lineup. The 
other members of the lineup will be placed randomly in the lineup. To 
the extent possible, the officer will place the suspect in different positions 
in each lineup when lineups will be shown to multiple witnesses 
in the same case. 
152  Appendix D. Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD Eyewitness Identification Procedures 


3. The officer will select fillers who generally fit the witness description 
of the perpetrator. When there is a limited or inadequate description 
of the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of 
the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, 
fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features. 
4. The lineup should maintain a consistent similarity of appearance 
between the suspect and fillers with respect to any unique or unusual 
features such as scars or tattoos. 
5. Complete uniformity of features is not required. The officer may 
avoid using fillers who so closely resemble the suspect that a person 
familiar with the suspect might find it difficult to distinguish the suspect 
from the fillers. 
6. The officer will ensure that no writings or information concerning 
previous arrests or identifications will be visible to the witness on any 
lineup. 
7. The officer will view the lineup once it is completed to ensure that the 
suspect does not unduly stand out and appears only once in the lineup. 
8. When showing a lineup with a different suspect, the officer will not use 
the same fillers used in previous lineups shown to the same witness. 
C. Conducting a Photographic Lineup. 
A sequential or simultaneous lineup will be conducted in a manner that 
promotes reliability, fairness, and objectivity in the identification 
process. 

1. The officer will give the witness verbal instructions regarding the lineup. 
In addition, the officer will give the witness a written copy of the 
Simultaneous Photographic Lineup Instruction Sheet and have the 
witness sign an acknowledgement of receipt. If multiple witnesses are 
involved, the officer will separate the witnesses and give each witness 
instructions regarding the lineup without the other witnesses present. 
Witnesses should not be allowed to confer with one another either 
before, during, or after the procedure. 
Appendix D. Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD Eyewitness Identification Procedures  153 


2. The officer will instruct the witness prior to viewing the lineup that 
the suspect may or may not be included in the lineup. When conducting 
a sequential lineup, the officer will not inform the witness: 1) how 
many photographs will be shown in the lineup, or 2) prior to the complete 
lineup presentation, that the witness will be allowed to view the 
lineup a second time if they do not make identification. 
3. The officer will instruct the witness that it is as important to eliminate 
innocent parties from consideration as it is to identify those involved 
in the crime. 
4. The officer will instruct the witness that characteristics such as hairstyles, 
beards and mustaches can easily be changed and that complexions 
may look slightly different in photographs. 
5. The officer will instruct the witness that, upon viewing the lineup, the 
witness will be asked if they recognize anyone and if so, the circumstances 
from which the witness recognizes the individual. 
6. Prior to showing the lineup, the officer will ask the witness if they 
understand how the procedure will be conducted and if they have any 
questions. 
7. The witness will then be given the opportunity to view the lineup. To 
the extent possible, the lineup will be placed before the witness in such 
a way that the officer is not holding or touching the lineup while the 
witness is viewing the lineup. 
8. The witness may look at the lineup for as long as the witness wishes; 
however, the officer may not provide any feedback regarding the photographs. 
9. If the witness indicates that they recognize someone in the lineup, the 
officer will ask the circumstances from which the witness recognizes 
the individual. The officer will document the witness responses for 
the investigative case file. When conducting a sequential lineup, the 
officer will show the witness all of the photographs, even if the witness 
makes identification during the presentation. 
10. If the witness identifies anyone in the lineup, the witness will be asked 
to sign and date the lineup or photograph, indicating the individual 
154  Appendix D. Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD Eyewitness Identification Procedures 


they identified. The lineup will become a part of the investigative case 
file. 

11. If the witness identifies a suspect, the officer will not provide the witness 
any feedback regarding the individual selected or comment on 
the outcome of the procedure in any way. 
12. The officer will instruct the witness not to discuss the lineup or its 
results with other witnesses and will discourage the witness from discussing 
the case with the media. 
13. In the event there are multiple witnesses, each witness will be shown 
a clean copy of the lineup. 
14. The officer will document all lineup procedures, including the source 
of the photos used, the date and time the lineup was conducted, and 
the names of all persons present when the lineup was shown. Any 
lineup that an officer shows to a witness, regardless of whether or not 
the witness makes an identification of the suspect, will become a part 
of the investigative case file and, in the case of a sequential lineup, will 
include documentation as to the order in which the photos were 
shown to the witness. 
D. Body Lineups 
A body lineup will be used most often in situations where an individual 
who is a suspect in multiple cases is in custody or in a case where numerous 
witnesses may be able to identify the suspect. If the suspect is not in 
custody, the suspect may be asked to voluntarily participate in a lineup 
or may be required to participate through the use of a nontestimonial 
identification order. A body lineup will be conducted at the Mecklenburg 
County Jail Central facility and will be coordinated with the Mecklenburg 
County Sheriff s Office, in order to ensure that the suspect is not 
scheduled for a court appearance and will be available at the facility in a 
timely manner. A body lineup will be conducted under the guidance of a 
supervisor from the Criminal Investigations Bureau. An officer conducting 
a body lineup will adhere to the following guidelines. 

Appendix D. Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD Eyewitness Identification Procedures  155 


1. All witnesses will be required to appear at the CMPD Headquarters 
Building at least one hour before the lineup, in order to ensure their 
presence and to provide them with instructions regarding the lineup. 
2. The District Attorneys Office will be notified of the lineup, so that the 
appropriate Assistant District Attorney may attend. 
3. The suspects attorney (or the Public Defenders Office, when appropriate) 
will be notified on the day of the lineup at least three (3) hours 
prior to the lineup. 
4. The officer will request a meeting with the suspect and his attorney 
prior to the lineup, in order to provide adequate time for lineup 
preparation. 
5. The suspect and his attorney will be given the opportunity, under 
escort of detention personnel, to select nine (9) individuals from the 
inmate population to serve as fillers in the lineup. The officer will then 
select five (5) of those individuals as fillers. 
6. The officer will ensure that each of the fillers is dressed similarly to the 
suspect and that the lineup participants represent a non-suggestive 
lineup. 
7. The suspect will not be placed in the first position of any lineup. If 
only one witness is viewing the lineup, the suspect and his attorney 
will be allowed to place the participants in the order in which they 
wish them to appear in the lineup. If multiple witnesses are involved, 
the officer will, to the extent possible, place the suspect in different 
positions in each lineup. The other members of the lineup will be 
placed randomly in each lineup. 
8. Each participant will be given a visible number corresponding to their 
placement in the lineup and numbers will be exchanged as the participants 
positions in successive lineups change. 
9. A photograph of each lineup will be taken prior to its presentation, 
documenting the order in which the participants are presented and 
their clothing and general appearance. 
10. An independent administrator will give instructions to the witnesses 
and conduct the lineup. The case investigator will not have contact 
156  Appendix D. Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD Eyewitness Identification Procedures 


with the independent administrator or the witnesses. The same procedures 
for separating witnesses, providing instructions, and administering 
the lineup, as set forth in Section IV.C.1  6 above, will be followed. 

11. Prior to the viewing the lineup, the witness will be instructed that 
they will be looking at a series of individuals, one at a time, through 
a two-way mirror and that the individuals will not be able to see or 
hear the witness. 
12. Upon entering the viewing area, the witness will be given the opportunity 
to view the participants, one at a time, from the front and from 
the side. If it is necessary for the participants to perform any physical 
actions (speak a phrase, walk, etc.), each participant must perform 
the same actions. 
13. After viewing all of the participants, the witness will be asked if they 
recognize anyone in the lineup. If the witness recognizes anyone, the 
witness will be asked to state the circumstances from which the witness 
recognizes the individual. All of the participants will be brought 
into the viewing area, even if the witness makes identification during 
the presentation. The suspects attorney will not be allowed to question 
any witness. 
14. If the witness requests to see a specific individual after viewing the 
entire lineup, the officer will present the entire lineup to the witness 
again, in the same order in which it was initially presented. 
15. If the witness identifies a suspect, the officer will not provide the witness 
any feedback regarding the individual selected or comment on 
the outcome of the procedure in any way. 
16. After a witness has viewed the lineup, the officer will instruct the witness 
not to discuss the lineup or its results with other witnesses and 
will discourage the witness from discussing the case with the media. 
17. The officer will record the results of the lineup on the body lineup 
form and will include the exact words used by each witness in viewing 
the lineup. The officer will also prepare a detailed supplement as 
to how the proceeding was conducted. The officer will maintain the 
body lineup form and the supplement in the investigative case file 
and forward copies to the District Attorneys Office. 
Appendix D. Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD Eyewitness Identification Procedures  157 


V. REFERENCES 
NIJ Guidelines Eyewitness Evidence  A Guide For Law Enforcement 
October 1999 

North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission Recommendations for 
Eyewitness Identification 

North Carolina Department of Justice: Recommendations For Eyewitness 
Identification 

158  Appendix D. Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD Eyewitness Identification Procedures 


APPENDIX E 

Denver Police Department 
Standard Operating Procedure 
and Training Bulletin for 
Videotaping Interrogations 

TRAINING BULLETIN 

Image of reflected skyline

BY JONATHYN W. PRIEST 

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT 
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS BUREAU 

VIDEO INTERVIEW FACILITY 
VIDEO INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES 

Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations  159 



Image of Denver Police Badge

(The following pages are excerpts of the full training bulletin. Other components 
include technical instruction to use the rooms and equipment as well 
as protocols for interviewing other parties.) 

The Denver Police Department has been videotaping homicide and serious 
crime scenes since 1979. Videotaping has been used to document 
line-ups, surveillance activities, witness hypnosis sessions, search warrant 
execution, and a myriad of other activities. Video recordings provide a 
clear and accurate record of police activities as well as interviews. The 
video recording of interviews has occurred in Denver since November of 
1983 when members of the Denver Police Department and the Denver 
District Attorneys Office joined in the development and implementation 
of a Video Interview facility and procedure for video interviewing. 

This early facility consisted of a single interview room with a camera 
room located behind a two-way mirror. Viewing the interview was made 
possible by way of a remote monitor located in a third room. Video 
recording interviews in Denver was born. 

This system quickly became the premier procedure for documenting 
and preserving statements from victims, witnesses and suspects. Officer 
involved shooting investigations as well as homicide investigations occupied 
a great deal of time in this room. Through the years it became 
increasingly obvious that the need for an additional room was necessary. 

In the third quarter of 1995, a plan was developed to expand the 
video interview facility as well as incorporate state of the art equipment 
for video capture. In January of 1997, the new facility was ready for use. 
The new facility system now consists of two separate interview rooms 
connected to a central recording equipment room. In addition, there are 
two viewing rooms with the capability of viewing interviews being conducted 
in the interview rooms from a single location. Additionally, a 

160  Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations 


computer monitor screen was added to each interview room and con

nected to a remote computer terminal. This will allow viewers outside 

the room to send questions to the interviewer without disturbing the 

conversation. 

While the primary use of these rooms is for the documentation of 

statements and confessions of persons involved in serious crimes, the 

rooms are also used for many other purposes. Young victims of sexual 

assault or child abuse are interviewed on videotape thereby avoiding 

needless repetition of painful testimony to other police personnel, pros

ecutors, parents, and social workers. Statements of hostile or uncooper

ative witnesses, who may recant at a later date, are preserved for 

subsequent use in court should their initial account change. Further

more, the viewing and documentation of the recovery of evidence, exe

cution of non-testimonial court orders, and clothing a witness is wearing 

can be facilitated. 

Statement taking has long been a process of verbal interviewing fol

lowed by a set of questions and answers, then reducing the process to 

writing. Stenographers and tape recordings became more prevalent in 

the 70s, with low tech videotaping in the 80s. Todays technology allows 

for the much superior multi-purpose, digital capture available. 

Tape recordings and stenographers provided a clear and accurate 

record of what was said, however, the video recording has many distinct 

advantages. These include, but are not limited to: 

 
Clothing being worn by the subject. 
 
Demeanor and actions are easily viewed. 
 
Injuries present, or the lack of the same, are clearly evident. 
 
Body language, eye movement and other non-verbal gestures are seen 
and can be evaluated. 
 
Mental and physical conditions at the time of the interview are better 
preserved. 
 
This format further provides a forum for the individuals to show 
what happened, use diagrams to augment statements as well as 
clarify testimony with demonstrations and exhibits. 
Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations  161 


The video is an aid to the investigation, during their preparation 
and presentation of a criminal case. These tapes can be viewed by: 

1. Investigators, not present at the initial interview. 
2. Prosecutors, who must make filing decisions and introduce the case 
in court. 
3. Judges, who must make legal decisions. 
4. Defense attorneys, who must go to trial or decide at what level to 
plead a client. 
5. Psychiatrists, who may provide an opinion related to the mental state 
of a subject. 
6. Parents, social workers, and psychologists who must work with and 
treat the victims, witnesses and suspects of crimes. 
7. The jurors, who will decide guilt or innocence of the accused. 
Video recordings do not fade with time and have a perfect, unimpeachable 
memory. It reduces the number of witnesses who must testify 
concerning an event and may be more accurate than the collective recollection 
of all the witnesses who were present. Interviewers do not need 
to take notes or become distracted during the interview as the content is 
being documented completely. Recall and interpretation of what 
occurred may be augmented by later viewing of the interview. What 
order events happened, who participated in the event, the physical and 
mental condition of persons involved, the demeanor and attitudes of 
these participants, the questions asked, the answers given, or any nonverbal 
communication through body language and other gestures are all 
recorded as they happen. 

Claims of improper conduct by the police, such as brutality, intimidation, 
threats, promises, or the failure to advise of constitutional rights, 
can be judged first hand by the viewer. A jury can be shown a particular 
interview and allowed to make their decision and what weight to give it 
when considering all the evidence. The video is also available for the 
appeals process and Superior Court review. 

The use of these statements helps to reduce the time used testifying, 
time in suppression hearings as well as reduction in the number of 

162  Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations 


witnesses called to give evidence. Video documentation will also assist in 

reducing evidence lost through suppression. Guilty pleas have increased, 

the likelihood of conviction has risen and the mental impact on victims 

and witnesses has been reduced, all through the use of this video medium. 

A picture is worth a thousand words understates the true 

value of video recording with respect to the criminal justice system. 

There are no surprises, the video speaks, and demonstrates, for itself. 

The use of this medium will continue to increase in the future. The 

courts have accepted this as a viable means of documenting testimonial 

information. Video documentation has proven its evidentiary value, 

ability to sway juries, and improved investigative integrity. 

USING THE VIDEO INTERVIEW ROOM 

Some of the various uses for the video interview facility include: 

1. Statements, admissions and confessions of any suspects. 
2. Officer Involved Shooting and Use of Force investigations 
3. Statements from victims and witnesses of serious crimes, particularly 
where visible injury or emotional trauma is present. (Sex Assault, 
Child Abuse, Assault, Homicide, etc) 
4. Statements of special witnesses (hostile, uncooperative, witnesses to 
jail house confessions, confidential informants, coconspirators who 
will testify for the prosecution, witnesses who may be unavailable at 
the time of court.) 
THE DECISION TO VIDEO RECORD A STATEMENT 

Video recording is not required by the laws in the State of Colorado. It is, 
however, expected by the jury who sit in the court during trial. 

1. Police personnel are encouraged to use the Video Interview Facility 
when possible in taking statements or obtaining confessions from suspects 
involved in a crime. 
2. The manner in which an investigator conducts their investigation and 
interrogation is left as flexible as possible to maximize effectiveness. 
Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations  163 


While the investigators are encouraged to video record statements, the 
individual investigator must use their professional judgment in making 
a determination as to what is performed and when it is completed. 

3. General approaches include:1 
a. A subject is brought into the Video Interview Facility cold and 
recording begins immediately. This style fits with a suspect indicating 
a desire to confess. This may also work well with any suspect 
interview. 
b. The subject is interviewed in advance and then taken to the Video 
Interview Facility where the statement is documented electronically. 
c. The subject is interviewed in advance and then taken to the Video 
Interview Facility to re-tell the story to other investigators or 
District Attorney. 
4. Officer Involved Shooting investigations utilize the Video Interview 
Facility more than any other investigation. Virtually all participants 
and witnesses are interviewed on video. Each interview conducted in 
relation to this investigation is scheduled in an order that will follow 
the best chronological order of the event. Interviews begin with civilian 
witnesses, followed by officer witnesses, and then involved officers. 
For more information about Officer Involved Shooting investigations, 
see the Police Shooting Protocol. 
THE INTERVIEW ON VIDEO 

Preparing for taking a video statement is the same as the preparation for 
completing any interview. Some areas become important as a result of the 
visual aspect associated with a video interview. As with any interview, the 
investigator should be familiar with, but not limited to, the following: 

1. Basic facts and evidence relevant to the case. 
2. Crime Scene: should you go there? Visits to the scene can be very helpful 
with respect to understanding a statement. 
1. Although it is understood that some statements may be made off camera it is important to 
maintain consistency when obtaining testimony from victims, witnesses, and suspects. 
164  Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations 


3. What legally admissible evidence is available, and known, concerning 
the crime and the suspect? Identifying evidence and understanding its 
importance may become an issue should a statement be suppressed. 
4. Has the suspect made prior statements either verbal or written? If so, 
have these statements available. They should be reviewed prior to an 
interview and used during the current interview. 
5. Has the suspect been given a Miranda warning? How many times? 
In writing? By whom? If documented, have this information for your 
interview. 
6. Has the suspect requested an attorney? This is an important fact to 
know prior to beginning a custodial interview. 
7. Is the suspect a juvenile? A parent or guardian may be required prior 
to continuing. 
8. Would a diagram of the scene be of use? Have someone familiar with 
the scene construct one. The plasma screens on the wall are for this 
purpose. 
9. What defenses may be available or are likely to be raised at the time of 
trial? Be prepared to address issues these at the time of the interview. 
10. Would physical evidence2 to the crime be of assistance? Is it available 
for use? 
Through proper preparation, the quality of the final product 
improves. Remember, you may have only one opportunity to interview 
the suspect, therefore, it is crucial that you cover all possible scenarios, 
ask all relevant questions, and most of all, get answers to those questions. 

CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEW 

Once the equipment setup is completed and the interview is about to 
begin, make the camera operator aware that you are ready. The operator 

2. If you present evidence in the interview, use it toward the end of the interview so that should 
the statement be suppressed, the evidence section can be preserved and avoid editing problems. 
Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations  165 


will start the equipment and then knock on the glass, indicating that you 
may start. Wait a moment and begin your interview. Follow the Video 
Interview Sheet. 

1. State the current date and time. 
2. Introduce yourself. Title and name; Im Detective John Jones. 
3. State where you are located; In the Video Interview Room and Denver 
Police Headquarters. 
4. Describe what the interview concerns. (What is being investigated?) 
5. Introduce who is being interviewed. (Subject) 
6. Introduce others present in the room. 
(Other investigators, DA, 
Defense Council) 
7. If the person being interviewed is a suspect you may3 want to give 
the Miranda Advisement at this time. 
8. Follow with the four (4) written questions: 
 
Have any promises or threats been made at anytime by myself or 
anyone else to get you to make this statement? 
 
Are you under the influence of any narcotics, drugs, or alcohol? 
 
Is this statement being made voluntarily? 
 
Are you aware that this is being both audio and video recorded? 
(see video sheet) 
9. Use your professional interview skills to take a complete and thorough 
statement. Take your time and cover all areas completely. Remember 
that you may get only one chance at this. 
10. The video capture equipment will record indefinitely to the capacity 
of the system hard disk. The audiocassettes will run indefinitely with 
the operator changing them as they reach the end. 
3. You must decide at this time if the subject is in custody, or perceives custody. Many times this 
is simply a conversation and may not require Miranda. Be careful. 
166  Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations 


11. When the investigator concludes the interview, the concluding statement 
is left to the discretion of the interviewer. Many simply close by 
stating this will conclude this statement. You may, however, want to 
ask a concluding statement like often times, you are waiting to be 
asked a question so you can give a particular answer. During the 
interview, we may not have done this. Is there anything you believe 
we need to known in relation to this case? Once completed simply 
conclude the interview and state the current date and time. 
12. If, prior to conclusion, you need to stop the interview, for any reason, 
indicate the reason, if possible, and state the date and time you are 
stopping and that you are going off the record. When you return, 
indicate the time and date and ask the interviewee if there was any 
conversation off the record. If so, discuss the conversation. It is also 
important to note any significant change in surroundings, clothing 
or other difference from one statement to the next when talking to 
the same individual.4 
13. You should not discuss a suspects criminal history on video. If you 
have a special circumstance, do it at the end of the interview where 
a break can be made. The purpose for this is that the jury is not 
allowed to view the suspects prior criminal history. 
14. It is important to remember that others will see this video and/or listen 
to the audio portion of the interview. Often times the audiocassette 
is utilized for transcribing the interview. Conversation should 
be one at a time. Talking over or at the same time makes it difficult 
to understand what was said and who said it. Important facts are 
missed when this occurs. Ask the question, and then wait for the 
answer. If the subject pauses, wait a momentthen continue. 
15. While conducting a video interview, questions should be direct and 
simple. Avoid compound questions, which may require compound 
answers. When wanting a description of events, ask open-ended questions. 
When you want a direct answer, ask close-ended questions. 
4. If the subject changes clothing during the break, has evidence of medical treatment, is 
wearing/not wearing something that was/was not present during the previous interview, etc. 
The interviewer should address the discrepancy and why it occurred. 
Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations  167 


16. Dont mumble. Keep your subject from talking low, mumbling or 
slurring their speech. If you are covering important areas, you may 
wish to restate the subjects answer. Think about your question 
before asking. Dont interrupt the subjects answer unless it is advantageous 
to your interview. Dont anticipate an answer and then state 
it for the subject. Remember, this is their statement and they must 
answer. 
USING THE VIDEO INTERVIEW IN COURT 

The working copy should be used in court unless the defense demands 
the use of the original video kept with the original case file. 

Should the original be used, take all pertinent precautions before, 
during and after use. The video equipment operator is an endorsed witness 
and will be available to testify in court if necessary. In most cases the 
video will be introduced by stipulation. 

Videotape/DVD machines and television sets are available on moveable 
carts from the District Attorneys Office in room 492 at the City and 
County Building. These machines are simple to operate and may be used 
by the investigator who is showing or viewing the video. For court purposes, 
the DA will normally provide a technology and support person 
specifically trained in the use of this equipment. The Tech person will 
operate this equipment at time of the court hearing. 

It is important to understand that the Video Interview Room system 
was specifically designed to capture a digital original. Because of the 
digital nature of this capture, an infinite number of copies can be produced 
in the exact quality. If this process is properly explained, the use of 
the protected original will not be needed in court as the working 
copy will suffice. 

PLASMA SCREENS 

Each interview room contains a plasma screen with a Smart Board 
overlay. This system allows for the introduction of photographs and 
drawings of the scene to be introduced into the interview. Images that 
can be posted include, but are not limited to: 

 
Crime scene photographs 
168  Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations 


 
Crime scene drawings 
 
Wound diagrams 
 
Injury photographs 
 
Photo lineups 
 
Video streams 
 
Vehicle photographs. 
These digital images may then be drawn onto and the images captured 
on computers located in the equipment room. This process will 
substitute for drawings and posted information. The captured data can 
be reproduced for later demonstrative purposes. 

Appendix E. Denver PD Standard Operating Procedure & Training Bulletin for Videotaping Interrogations  169 


APPENDIX F 

Las Vegas Metropolitan 
Police Department 
Cold Case Solvability Criteria 

LEVEL 1: 

 
Named suspect 
 
Forensic evidence (DNA, latent prints [AFIS], firearms) 
 
Witness identification of suspect 
 
Physical evidence that connects suspect to the victim. 
(Photographs, writing, fibers, etc.). 
LEVEL 2: 

 
Unknown suspect 
 
Forensic evidence (DNA, latent prints [AFIS], firearms) 
 
Witness identification of suspect 
 
Physical evidence that connects suspect to the victim. 
LEVEL 3: 

 
Unknown suspect 
 
Forensic evidence (DNA, latent prints[(AFIS], firearms) 
 
Physical evidence 
 
Witnesses unable to identify. 
Appendix F. Las Vegas Metropolitan PD Cold Case Solvability Criteria  171 


LEVEL 4: 

 
Unknown suspect 
 
Physical evidence 
 
Witnesses unable to identify 
 
Unidentified victim. 
LEVEL 5: 

 
Unknown suspect 
 
Little or no physical evidence 
 
No witnesses 
 
Unidentified victim. 
172  Appendix F. Las Vegas Metropolitan PD Cold Case Solvability Criteria 


APPENDIX G 

Washington, D.C., 
Metropolitan Police 
Department Homicide Case 
Review Solvability Chart 

SUSPECT COMMENTS 

Arrested but released  
________________________________ 
Named, no arrest  
________________________________ 
Incarcerated/other charge  
________________________________ 
Under Investigation/ 

other charge  
________________________________ 
Deceased  
________________________________ 
Seen but unidentified  
________________________________ 
No suspects  
________________________________ 

WITNESS 

Witness Under 
Investigation/Trial  
________________________________ 
Witness Incarcerated  
________________________________ 
Multiple eye-witnesses  
________________________________ 
Other  
________________________________ 

FIREARM EVIDENCE 

Shell Casings Recovered  
________________________________ 
Slugs Recovered  
________________________________ 

Appendix G. Washington, D.C., Metropolitan PD Homicide Case Review Solvability Chart  173 


Linked to Another Crime  
________________________________ 

No Firearm Evidence 
Recovered  
________________________________ 

FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE 

Unidentified Prints 
Recovered  
________________________________ 

No Fingerprint 
Evidence Recovered  
________________________________ 

DNA EVIDENCE 

Potential Suspect 

DNA Recovered  
________________________________ 
Potential Probative 
Victim DNA  
________________________________ 

No DNA Evidence 
Recovered  
________________________________ 

OTHER CRIMES 

Potential Link to 
Another Crime  
________________________________ 

MISC. SOLVABILITY FACTORS 

___________________  
________________________________ 
___________________  
________________________________ 

174  Appendix G. Washington, D.C., Metropolitan PD Homicide Case Review Solvability Chart 


Police Executive Research Forum 
1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 930 
Washington, DC 20036 
202-466-7820 
202-466-7826 fax 
www.PoliceForum.org 

Police Executive Research Forum Logo