Lineups

• Causes of miscarriages of justice

  • Mistaken identity
  • Over-reliance on circumstantial evidence
  • Perjury by witnesses
  • Self-incriminating confessions
  • Unreliability of "expert" witnesses
• Borchard (1932) found 65 wrongful convictions, with the most common causes of error being:
• Causes of miscarriages of justice (Borchard 1932)


  • Mistaken identity (29, or 45% of convictions)
  • In only 2 cases did defendant resemble real culprit
  • Over-reliance on circumstantial evidence
  • Perjury by witnesses
  • Self-incriminating confessions
  • Unreliability of "expert" witnesses
• Causes of miscarriages of justice (Brandon & Davies 1972)

  • Mistaken identification
  • Self-incriminating confessions
• Causes of miscarriages of justice (Bedau & Radelet 1987)


  • Errors caused by police investigation prior to trial (23% of sample, 14% involved false confessions due to coercion)
  • Errors caused by prosecution prior to or during trial (50, or 14% of cases, most common was suppression of evidence of innocence)
  • Errors caused by prosecution witness: perjury (117 cases) + mistaken identification (56 cases)
  • Miscellaneous – circumstantial evidence (9%) public demand + outrage (20%)
• Why are ID parades so unreliable?

  • Unfamiliar face recognition is poor
  • Physical changes in suspect between initial encounter + testing
  • Witness' misattribution of feelings of familiarity evoked by suspect's face
  • Jurors have misplaced faith in witnesses' confidence in their own identification accuracy
  • Difficult to ensure that lineups are fair (unbiased)
• Neil vs. Biggers (1972) U.S. Court's 5 criteria for evaluating eyewitnesses

  • Opportunity of eyewitness to view offender at time of crime
  • Witness' degree of attention
  • Accuracy of witness' prior description of offender
  • Level of witness' certainty at identification procedure
  • Length of time between crime + identification
• Brown, Deffenbacher & Strugill (1977) found that exposure to mugshots increased chances of false identification at line-up phase due to familiarity but not context
• Eyewitness identification


  ID parades (lineups) present suspect amongst innocent "foils" (distractions)
• ID parades can be unreliable due to false positive (false identification) + false negative (failing to identify suspect as "present")
• Social factors affecting target present lineup

  • Witness Expectations
  • Stress and Anxiety
  • Peer Pressure
• Witness Expectations


  Witnesses might feel pressured to pick someone, especially if they believe perpetrator is in lineup. This expectation can influence their choices.
• Stress and Anxiety


  The stressful nature of a crime can impact a witness's ability to accurately identify suspect. High levels of stress can lead to memory distortion or confusion.
• Peer Pressure


  If witnesses are aware that others are viewing lineup simultaneously, there may be a tendency to conform to choices of their peers, even if those choices are incorrect.
• Witness expectations + stress/anxiety tend to have a more significant impact in target present lineups. Peer pressure might have a slightly lesser effect.
• Social factors affecting target absent lineup

  • Filler Selection
  • Eyewitness Disappointment
  • Feedback Influence
• Filler Selection


  Choice of fillers (individuals who are not the suspect) in lineup is crucial. If fillers don't closely resemble suspect, it might make innocent stand out, leading to potential misidentifications.
• Eyewitness Disappointment


  In a target absent lineup, if witness was expecting to see perpetrator, they might still feel compelled to pick someone even if suspect is not present, leading to a false identification.
• Feedback Influence


  If investigator provides unintentional cues or feedback, it can influence witness's choices. For example, saying, "Good job," might make witness more confident in their identification, even if it's incorrect.
• Filler selection is critical in target absent lineups, and witness disappointment may also lead to false identifications. Feedback influence has a slightly lesser effect.
• Why do children make more false positives then adults?

  • Suggestibility
  • Imagination and Memory Formation
  • Less Developed Source Monitoring
  • Malleability of Memories
  • Limited Cognitive Resources
• Suggestibility


  Children are often more susceptible to suggestion + external influences, and more prone to providing answers they believe are expected or desired by adults or authority figures, which can lead to a higher rate of false positives.
• Imagination and Memory Formation

  Children's strong imagination can impact memory formation, leading them to inadvertently incorporate information from sources other than their actual experience, contributing to false memories and false positive identifications.
• Less Developed Source Monitoring

  Children may have a less developed ability to distinguish between different sources of information, resulting in misattribution of details and contributing to false positive identifications.
• Malleability of Memories


  Children's memories are more susceptible to suggestion or misinformation, and subtle cues or unintentional feedback from adults can influence a child's memory, leading to false positives.
• Limited Cognitive Resources


  Children's developing cognitive resources, including attention and concentration, can make it more challenging for them to accurately process information presented in a lineup, increasing the likelihood of errors, including false positives.
• Differences in recognizing cartoon characters and human characters in lineups

  • Cartoon Character Recognition in Target-Present Lineup
  • Human Character Recognition in Target-Present Lineup
  • Cartoon Character Recognition in Target-Absent Lineup
  • Human Character Recognition in Target-Absent Lineup
• Cartoon Character Recognition in Target-Present Lineup


  Cartoon characters often have exaggerated and distinctive features that make them easily recognizable. Their visual salience and simplified features can enhance the likelihood of correct identification when the target is present in the lineup.
• Human Character Recognition in Target-Present Lineup

  Identifying a specific human in a lineup requires a more detailed and nuanced recognition process due to the complexity of human facial features and the influence of cultural and racial factors.
• Cartoon Character Recognition in Target-Absent Lineup


  The distinctive absence of a cartoon character in a lineup is typically more noticeable, and there is less room for ambiguity, which can reduce the likelihood of false positives.
• Human Character Recognition in Target-Absent Lineup

  Similarities among individuals in a lineup of human characters, as well as the influence of external factors like lighting and angle, can contribute to misidentifications if the observer is not familiar with the specific features that distinguish one person from another.
• Recommendations for good lineups (Douglass & Steblay 2006)

  • Effective use of fillers
  • Blind administration of lineup
  • Warn witness that the culprit may or may not be present
  • Sequential presentation
  • Record eyewitness assessment of their certainty at the time identification is made
  • Do not give witnesses feedback about their identification performance
• The legal system should reconsider eyewitness evaluation procedures, as criteria of confidence, attention, and view should not be used if post-identification feedback was provided.