Chronic statin therapy was associated with a reduction in all cardiac and vascular outcomes after major vascular surgery. Furthermore, in major adverse events, such as multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and surgical complications, statins were also associated with decreased mortality.

Prior research indicates that disguise negatively affects lineup identifications, but the mechanisms by which disguise works have not been explored, and different disguises have not been compared. In two experiments (Ns ϭ 87 and 91) we manipulated degree of coverage by two different types of disguise: a stocking mask or sunglasses and toque (i.e., knitted hat). Participants viewed mock-crime videos followed by simultaneous or sequential lineups. Disguise and lineup type did not interact. In support of the view that disguise prevents encoding, identification accuracy generally decreased with degree of disguise. For the stocking disguise, however, full and 2/3 coverage led to approximately the same rate of correct identifications-which suggests that disrupting encoding of specific features may be as detrimental as disrupting a whole face. Accuracy was most affected by sunglasses and we discuss the role metacognitions may have played. Lineup selections decreased more slowly than accuracy as coverage by disguise increased, indicating witnesses are insensitive to the effect of encoding conditions on accuracy. We also explored the impact of disguise and lineup type on witnesses' confidence in their lineup decisions, though the results were not straightforward.

Sequential lineups were offered as an alternativetothe traditional simultaneous lineup. Sequential lineups reduce incorrect lineup selections; however, the accompanying loss of correct identifications has resulted in controversy regarding adoption of the technique.Wediscuss the procedure and research relevant to (1) the pattern of results found using sequential versus simultaneous lineups; (2) reasons (theory) for differences in witness responses; (3) two methodological issues; and (4) implications for policy decisions regarding the adoption of sequential lineups.The simultaneous lineup involves showing aw itnessa na rray of people or photos comprised of as uspect and known-innocents (fillers). Lineup membersa re presented together (simultaneously). Witnesses indicate whether theyrecognize anyone from the lineup and,i fs o, from where.S election of as uspect can lead to prosecution and conviction, often in the absence of other evidence (Devlin, 1976). Witnesses frequently select people from alineup that theyhave neverseen before (Steblay,Dysart, Fulero,& Lindsay,2 001).S uch false positive choices implicate the innocent, deflect attention away from the guilty,a nd discredit eyewitnesses as as ource of evidence.Wells (1984) argued that witnesses makefrequent errorsfrom simultaneous lineups because theye mploy a' relative judgment strategy'; choosing the best match to their memory. Researchparticipants often state that theythought the 'target' would be in the lineup because there seemedt ob en or eason to attempt an identification unless the target wasincluded. In the realworld, asimilar style of reasoning may lead witnesses to believe that the lineup contains as uspect and that the police have other evidence implicating the suspect. In combination, this situation can lead witnesses to construe the task as deciding which member of the lineuptoselect rather than whether or not to

If an eyewitness rejects a show-up, police may respond by finding a new suspect and conducting a second show-up with the same eyewitness. Police may continue finding suspects and conducting show-ups until the eyewitness makes an identification (Study 1). Relatively low criterion-setting eyewitnesses filter themselves out of the multiple show-ups procedure by choosing the first suspect with whom they are presented (Studies 2 and 3). Accordingly, response bias was more stringent on the second show-up when compared with the first, but became no more stringent with additional show-ups. Despite this stringent shift in response bias, innocence risk increased with additional show-ups, as false alarms cumulate (Studies 2 and 3). Although unbiased show-up instructions decreased innocent suspect identifications, the numbers were still discouraging (Study 4). Given the high number of innocent suspects who would be mistakenly identified through the use of multiple show-up procedures, using such identifications as evidence of guilt is questionable. Although evidence of guilt is limited to identifications from a single show-up, practical constraints might sometimes require police to use additional show-ups. Accordingly, we propose a stronger partition between evidentiary and investigative procedures.

Triers of fact sometimes consider lineup fairness when determining the suggestiveness of an identification procedure. Likewise, researchers often consider lineup fairness when comparing results across studies. Despite their importance, lineup fairness measures have received scant empirical attention and researchers inconsistently conduct and report mock-witness tasks and lineup fairness measures. We conducted a large-scale, online experiment (N = 1,010) to examine how lineup fairness measures varied with mock-witness task methodologies as well as to explore the validity and reliability of the measures. In comparison to descriptions compiled from multiple witnesses, when individual descriptions were presented in the mock-witness task, lineup fairness measures indicated a higher number of plausible lineup members but more bias toward the suspect. Target-absent lineups were consistently estimated to be fairer than target-present lineups—which is problematic because it suggests that lineups containing innocent suspects are less likely to be challenged in court than lineups containing guilty suspects. Correlations within lineup size measures and within some lineup bias measures indicated convergent validity and the correlations across the lineup size and lineup bias measures demonstrated discriminant validity. The reliability of lineup fairness measures across different descriptions was low and reliability across different sets of mock witnesses was moderate to high, depending on the measure. Researchers reporting lineup fairness measures should specify the type of description presented, the amount of detail in the description, and whether the mock witnesses viewed target-present and/or -absent lineups.