A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups.

Abstract

Many states and communities are rewriting their eyewitness identification policies. Some of these jurisdictions are excluding simultaneous lineups altogether, and others are allowing them if double-blind administration of sequential lineups is not possible. The Innocence Project advocates the latter and puts forward blind sequential-lineup administration as the best form of lineup identification. Although sequential lineups are claimed to be superior, no explicit policy analysis has been done. In the present study, the author uses a policy-analysis model based on decision theory to examine the utility of simultaneous and sequential lineups, as well as to examine a range of values placed on identification outcomes and their probabilities. Simultaneous lineups are shown to be superior to sequential lineups under most conditions examined in this analysis.Keywords: simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, identification outcomes, policy, utility model Eyewitness identification has been the focus of vigorous investigation for more than a quarter of a century. The range of topics studied has grown, and the presence of the field has expanded in journal publications, in the courses available in universities, and in the textbooks available for these courses. To some degree, the field has attracted attention from television and print media, with programs on both broadcast and cable networks devoted in whole or in part to eyewitness identification.The focal concerns of eyewitness research have always included the improvement of the investigative tools available to law enforcement. Part of this focus is on a reduction in identification errors through improved procedures and personnel training. It is obvious that every erroneous conclusion that an innocent person is guilty involves two injustices: prosecuting, and perhaps incarcerating, an innocent person and causing the actual culprit to remain free and unprosecuted, with the possibility of the culprit committing additional crimes.The injustice of wrongful conviction and the role of eyewitness identification in the process have been brought to public attention periodically in the last 200 or so years, sometimes through widely publicized cases and sometimes through systematic (self-) examination of errors and inadequacies in the criminal justice system. The early 19th century case of Sergeant Lesurques is interesting because seven men were executed in the wake of a robbery committed by five persons

Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

“…However, since there are few cases in which one procedure dominates another, policy decisions must address the question of how much cost (decrease in correct identifications) is acceptable in exchange for how much benefit (decrease in false identifications). The answer to this question goes beyond the numbers presented here and requires a careful analysis of costs, benefits, and social values (see Malpass, 2006).…”

“…The argument against their use is that they also reduce the likelihood of correct identifications (Malpass, 2006).…”

Personenidentifizierung

“…zur Vorsicht angehalten. Malpass [17] überprüfte die Nützlichkeit sequentieller und simultaner Gegenüberstellungen anhand eines auf Entscheidungstheorien basierten Modells. Er zeigte, dass die Nützlichkeit der beiden Gegenüberstellungsformen unter anderem von zwei Fakoren abhängt.…”

Much better than the sequential lineup: a 120-person lineup

“…Steblay et al (2001, Table 1) report, for example, that correct identifications in simultaneous lineups average 50%, while they average 35% in sequential ones. Those who are more concerned about false convictions prefer sequential lineups, as mistaken identifications often result in mistaken guilty verdicts (but see Malpass, 2006). Dupuis and Lindsay (2007) argue, on the other hand, that the sequential lineup is not good enough: a 0.046 rate of mistaken identifications is too high, so that being satisfied with sequential lineups is not an acceptable option for the criminal justice system.…”