Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A detailed analysis is made of lineup models for eyewitness identification. Previous treatments of eyewitness identification have nol distinguished between the all-suspecl model and the single-suspect model. The single-suspect model allows for the occurrence of foil identifications, a know n-error category, whereas the all-suspect model does not. A Bayesian analysis of posterior probabilities of the guilt of a given suspect under various prior probabilities shows that the all-suspect model maj be more or less diagnostic than the single-suspect model depending on the extent to which the use of suspects rather than foils increases the prior likelihood that the actual target is in I he lineup. On the other hand, the lineup-wise error rate (which is the likelihood that any suspect will be falsely identified) is considerably higher with the all-suspecl lineup. Field data show that the all-suspect lineup is sometimes used by police departments, and some data suggest that police do not appreciate the distinction between the two models with regard to lineup-wise error rates. It is recommended that either a mixed model or a preceding blank lineup be used to replace all-suspecl models in actual cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wells et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: