The Illinois field study: A significant contribution to understanding real world eyewitness identification issues

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 22-27

  Mecklenburg, Sheri H ^a,b   Bailey, Patricia J ^c   Larson, Mark R ^d,e  

^a United States Attorney's Office   (United States)

^b Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double Blind Lineup Procedures   (United States)

^c Special Projects Bureau   (United States)

^d King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office   (United States)

^e United States Department of Justice   (United States)

Author keywords

Double blind lineups; Eyewitness identification; Field studies; Lineups; Sequential presentation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIME; FIELD STUDY; HUMAN; IDENTITY; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MOTIVATION; OFFENDER; POLICE; POLICY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RELIABILITY; UNITED STATES; VIOLENCE; WITNESS;

CRIME VICTIMS; CRIMINOLOGY; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; HUMANS; IDENTIFICATION (PSYCHOLOGY); ILLINOIS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 37849049864     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-007-9108-6     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Cutler, B., & Penrod, S. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 281-290.
2. Ebbesen, E., & Finklea, K. (2006). In response to the Illinois Pilot Project on simultaneous v. sequential lineups. Loyola University School of Law Public Interest Law Reporter, 11(2), 9-12, 27-30.
3. Illinois Pilot Report (2006). Report to the Illinois Legislature: Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential, Double-Blind Lineup Procedures, www.il.state.us.gov; www.chicagopolice.org.
4. Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N., & Caligiuri, H. (2006). Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin county's blind sequential lineup pilot project. Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal, 4, 381-413.
5. Lindsay, R., & Wells, G. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556-564.
6. Lindsay, R., Lea, J., Nosworthy, G., Fulford, J., Hector, J., Van Le, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 796-802.
7. Malpass, R. (2006). Notes on the Illinois Pilot Program on sequential double blind identification procedures. Loyola University School of Law Public Interest Law Reporter, 11(2), 5-8, 39-41.
8. McQuiston-Surrett, D. E., Malpass, R., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. Simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data and theory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12(2), 137-169.
9. Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to high intense stress. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 265-279.
10. Phillips, M., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind lineup administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 940-951.
11. Schacter, D., Dawes, R., Jacoby, L., Kahneman, D., Lempert, R., Roediger, H., & Rosenthal, R. (2007). Policy Forum: Studying eyewitness investigations in the field, Law and Human Behavior, 31(5) (this issue).
12. Sporer, S., et al. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 22-33.
13. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: Meta-analytical comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 459-473.
14. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. (2002). Erratum. Law and Human Behavior, 26(4), 467.
15. Steblay, N. (2007, February). Harvard Law Institute Webconference.
16. Wells, G. L. (2006, April). New policies, new practices: Fresh perspectives on eyewitness identification, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law Conference.