Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups

Abstract

Data were analysed from 640 attempts by eyewitnesses to identify the alleged culprit in 314 lineups organized by the Metropolitan Police in London. Characteristics of the witness, the suspect, the witness's opportunity to view the culprit, the crime and the lineup were recorded. Data analysis, using mixed effects multinomial logistic regression, revealed that the suspect was more likely to be identified if the witness is younger than 30, the suspect is a white European (rather than AfricanCaribbean), the witness gave a detailed description, viewed the culprit for over a minute and made a fast decision at the lineup. None of the explanatory variables were significantly associated with a mistaken identification of a foil. No independent, statistically reliable effects of weapon focus, crossrace identification, or of the delay before the identification attempt were observed.

Live Showups and Their Influence on a Subsequent Video Line‐up

“…An archival study of criminal cases in the USA found that identification of the police suspect was more likely if the lineup occurred within 7 days (55%) rather than after 7 days (45%; Behrman & Davey, 2001). Similarly, Valentine et al (2003) found that 65% of witnesses identified the police suspect from live lineups held within 7 days but only 40% identified the suspect if the lineup was held more than 7 days after the incident. In archival studies it cannot be established independently how many suspects are the culprit.…”

“…Pezdek and Blandon-Gitlin (2005) found no effect of commitment from a first lineup, which followed 2 hours after viewing a target face, on identification from a second lineup after 1 month. The effect of delay found in archival studies of police lineups suggests that a delay of more than 7 days may have a significant impact on identification ability (e.g., Valentine et al 2003). Therefore, the aim of Experiment 3 was to examine the effect of delay after taking part in a live showup on the outcomes of a video lineup held 1 -6 days, or 9 -30 days later.…”

“…The modal delay for a sample of police lineups conducted in London was between 1 and 2 months (Valentine, Pickering & Darling, 2003). An archival study of criminal cases in the USA found that identification of the police suspect was more likely if the lineup occurred within 7 days (55%) rather than after 7 days (45%; Behrman & Davey, 2001).…”

Limitations of Expert Psychology Testimony on Eyewitness Identification

“…Additionally, the results of field studies raise the possibility that variables (such as memory strength) within the eyewitness context might moderate the effects of primary eyewitness variables. For instance, field studies examining the weapon focus effect did not find significant differences in suspect identification rates depending on whether a weapon was present (Behrman & Davey, 2001;Valentine, Pickering, & Darling, 2003;Wright & McDaid, 1996), or depending on whether the witness was subjected to violence (Wright & McDaid, 1996). Additionally, field studies have found mixed results regarding the cross-race effect (Behrman & Davey, 2001;Valentine, Pickering, & Darling, 2003).…”

Running head: Relative judgment. When the relative judgment theory proved to be false

“…In contrast to Levi's studies, however, the learning was not incidental, which explains the higher identification rate. The identification rate is an important issue if we expect police to adopt a large lineup, and a 30% rate may satisfy police departments (see Valentine, Pickering & Darling, 2003 for an extensive summary of real lineup data predating the English video lineup).…”