Protecting innocent defendants, nailing the guilty: a modified sequential lineup

Levi, Avraham

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199806)12:3<265::aid-acp515>3.0.co;2-o

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The result is almost always lower identification rates. When Levi used an easier eyewitness condition (Levi 1998b), he found a higher identification rate.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research note: evidence for moving to an 84-person photo lineup

Levi¹

2007

J Exp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional six-to-ten person lineup is known to be extremely unreliable. Witnesses who choose someone when the suspect is innocent are too likely to choose that suspect. One solution is to enlarge the lineup in a manner that reduces mistaken identification far more than it lowers correct identification of the culprit. This experiment was built on past research, and it displayed to witnesses lineups consisting of sets of 12 photographs in an album, either two sets (24 photos) or seven sets (84 photos). No difference was found between witnesses for the 24-person lineup or the 84-person lineup in either their ability to identify the target whom they had seen previously, or in the number of mistaken choices of someone in lineups where the target was absent. Since the chance that the witness might mistakenly identify the suspect is far less in the 84-person lineup, lineups should consist of at least that number.The major question in criminal trials often is determining who has committed the crime. The testimony of a witness as to the identity of the offender frequently determines the verdict. If the witness knows the perpetrator personally, all the witness has to do is state that "John Smith did it".The police lineup was invented for when the perpetrator was seen for the first time by the witness, because witnesses can err, in particular regarding a stranger, and can actually "identify" an innocent person. The person the police suspect to be the guilty party is placed in a line with additional persons known to be innocent (foils) The witness is then asked whether he or she can identify the culprit.

show abstract

“…The result is almost always lower identification rates. When Levi used an easier eyewitness condition (Levi 1998b), he found a higher identification rate.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They can, after all, choose only one person. Levi (1998b) allowed witnesses to choose more than one person in order to increase choosing. Witnesses could choose when in doubt and still later identify the perpetrator.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research note: evidence for moving to an 84-person photo lineup

Levi¹

2007

J Exp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, researchers strive to mimic key 9 aspects of the identification task, and then manipulate it in ways that are either purely functional (e.g. Levi, 1998), or cognitively-inspired (Perfect & Weber, 2012). In either case, the goal is the same, and is specific to lineup choices: there is no aim to draw abstract conclusions about the nature of decision making, or to generalise to other kinds of tasks.…”

Section: A Parting Of the Waysmentioning

confidence: 99%

In defence of effect-centric research.

Wills

Hollins

2017

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Attempts to improve on the sequential lineup and to develop alternatives have already begun. Levi (1998) argued for the use of very large sequential lineups. Pryke, Lindsay, Dysart, and Dupuis (2004) introduced the multiple independent identification approach where witnesses first attempt an identification from a traditional lineup and then are asked to make additional identification attempts from other lineups such as a body and voice lineup.…”

Section: Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy

Lindsay¹,

Mansour²,

Beaudry³

et al. 2009

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Protecting innocent defendants, nailing the guilty: a modified sequential lineup

Cited by 17 publications

References 14 publications

Research note: evidence for moving to an 84-person photo lineup

Research note: evidence for moving to an 84-person photo lineup

In defence of effect-centric research.

Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About