177:
lineups. These states accept their benefits but do not want to rule out other types of lineup. There are different feelings about the advantages and disadvantages of sequential lineups. Gronlund, Carlson, Dailey, and
Goodsell state one of the disadvantages: "Sequential lineups do not enhance accuracy but rather make eyewitnesses more conservative in their willingness to choose. Although this is desirable when the police have an innocent suspect, it is problematic if the police have a guilty one." But Lindsay, Mansour, Beaudry, Leach, and Bertrand show one of the advantages of sequential lineups estimating that with them between 570 and 1425 innocent people would not be wrongfully convicted that would be with simultaneous lineups. According to the Innocence Project website, many states and law enforcement agencies have started to implement the tools that would be necessary to run double-blind sequential lineups but have yet to fully embrace them.
228:
combined results from 72 tests from 23 different labs from across the world including Canada, the United
Kingdom, the United States, Germany, and South Africa. These results included data from 13,143 people who participated as witness in the studies. In this study they found very similar results to previous studies that have been conducted. They found that sequential lineups are less likely to identify any type (whether guilty or not guilty) of a suspect than simultaneous lineups, but that when a suspect was identified he/she was more likely to be guilty using this method than a simultaneous lineup.
1924:
1663:
33:
144:. Wells has many studies that show that sequential lineups lead to fewer wrongful convictions. The early studies of sequential lineups found that there was a significant difference in the wrongful conviction of innocent persons. Since these early studies there has been a push to increase the accuracy of eyewitness memory even more.
148:
person conducting the lineup may have. The research for double-blind studies has shown that "now we have proof from the field that witnesses who view double-blind sequential lineups are just as likely to pick the suspect, and perhaps more importantly, less likely to make a misidentification by picking a filler in the lineup."
373:
The police can falsify the results of a lineup by giving hints to the witness. For example, they may let the witness "accidentally" see their preferred suspect in circumstances indicating criminality (e.g., in handcuffs) before the lineup. This is sometimes called an "Oklahoma showup" and was claimed
454:
Either confirming or refuting feedback to the witness has been shown to distort witnesses' reported perception of a suspect. Providing feedback to a witness after identifying a suspect can change the way they recall the quality and clarity of their perception of the incident, the speed and certainty
192:
Brain L. Cutler and Steven D. Penrod conducted this study in 1988 to examine multiple variables' influence on eyewitnesses' accuracy during a lineup. The participants were first given a videotaped store robbery and a questionnaire, then asked to identify the robber in a photo lineup. They were given
176:
While many states agree that sequential lineups can reduce wrongful convictions, they also notice that sequential lineups lead to more of a chance that the guilty would be overlooked and not convicted of their crime. Because of this many states do not want to implement a law that mandates sequential
78:
who may be prisoners, actors, police officers, or volunteers—stand side-by-side, both facing and in profile. There is crucial information that should be conveyed to the eyewitness prior to viewing the lineup. It is necessary to inform the eyewitness that it is possible the perpetrator is not present
215:
In this study, the correct identification rates were very much higher across all situations than normal. They also did not find a significant enough difference in correct identification rate between simultaneous and sequential lineups when the target was present. Most studies found that the correct
130:
is one of the two methods used for eyewitnesses to identify criminals in police station. In a standard sequential lineup, the suspects or their photos are presented one at a time to the witnesses only once. Witnesses make decisions about each individual suspect before the next one is shown and they
99:
Photographs of the suspect and fillers can be shown to the identifier in what is called a "photo-lineup", or a "six pack". If the victim or witness successfully identifies the suspect from among the fillers, the identification is considered valid. There is some research into using other methods of
391:
The use of DNA evidence has allowed for greater accuracy in choosing a suspect. It is evident that misidentification is not uncommon with police lineups. In a study published by the
Association for Psychological Science, scientists discovered that in a group of 349 people that had been exonerated
163:
A sequential lineup lap is showing the suspects repeatedly after the first round while in a standard sequential lineup eyewitnesses can only view them once. The thinking is that viewing the suspects again can increase the accuracy of identification since the eyewitnesses will be more certain about
110:
However, recent research suggests that the most reliable method is the interactive lineup. This allows a witness to dynamically view faces from multiple angles. By doing so, witnesses are more likely to spontaneously reinstate the angle at which they saw the perpetrator - known as perpetrator pose
468:
According to a 2021 study, optimal lineups have fillers who are similar to the description of the perpetrator of a crime, but who are otherwise dissimilar to the suspect. When fillers are highly similar to the suspect, it increases the chances that witnesses cannot make a possible identification.
400:
Mere exposure to a face can contribute to the illusion that an innocent person is the guilty party. For example, a witness might identify a receptionist as the guilty suspect simply because they had met briefly before, misattributing the familiarity to seeing the individual committing the crime.
267:
Meyer and colleagues conducted a study in 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of
Interactive Lineups by allowing witnesses to actively explore and reinstate the study-test pose during a lineup. The study involved 475 participants who were randomly assigned to one of six conditions, which varied by
227:
In 2011, Steblay, Dysart, and Wells attempted to answer a debate that has been around since the concept of sequential lineups. Are they superior to simultaneous lineups? In an effort to reproduce the results found in previous studies done on sequential lineups, Steblay, Dysart, and Wells took and
147:
One way this is accomplished is by having not just sequential lineups, but also double-blind sequential lineups. A double-blind sequential lineup is conducted by making sure that neither the witness nor the person conducting the lineup has any idea who the suspect is. This eliminates any bias the
240:
Interactive lineups represent a modern approach to eyewitness identification, leveraging naturalistic models of faces and allows the user to dynamically view faces from multiple angles. Developed at the
University of Birmingham, this new technology aims to overcome the limitations of traditional
167:
Research found that viewing the suspects once more has a large influence on witnesses' performance. Many witnesses moved from no-choice to choice, some changed answers and their confidence went up. Both correct identification rate and mistaken rate increased in a sequential lineup lap when the
139:
Although it is hard to pinpoint exactly when sequential lineups were first studied, the knowledge that simultaneous lineups often failed and convicted an innocent person has been common knowledge for many years. The advance of the popularity of sequential lineups can be traced to the
Innocence
231:
They found that there is an 8% difference in suspect identification between sequential and simultaneous lineups, favoring simultaneous lineups; meaning that simultaneous lineups are more likely overall to identify the guilty suspect. This finding has decreased since 2001 where there was a 15%
346:
Winsor and colleagues conducted a study in 2021 to explore the reliability of child witnesses using an interactive lineup system. The study involved 2,205 children across three age groups: young (ages 4-6), middle (ages 7-9), and late childhood (ages 10-17). Children watched a video and then
307:
Colloff and colleagues conducted a study to explore the impact of pose reinstatement and active exploration on witness discriminability during police lineups. The study involved nearly 10,000 participants and compared sequential photo lineups with sequential interactive lineups, as well as
86:
For evidence from a lineup to be admissible in court, the lineup itself must be conducted fairly. The police may not say or do anything that persuades the witness to identify the suspect that they prefer. This includes loading the lineup with people who look very dissimilar to the suspect.
232:
difference in favor of simultaneous lineups. They also replicated the findings that there is about a 22% difference between sequential and simultaneous lineups regarding errors in suspect identification; meaning that sequential lineups are less likely to identify the wrong suspect.
95:
The three main forms of police lineups are photographs of suspects, videos, or the original form of physically present lineups. While photos and videos are often more practical and convenient, lineups where suspects are physically present have been shown to improve identification.
79:
in the lineup. The eyewitness should also be told that they do not have to choose one of the people from the lineup. Including these details has shown to result in fewer misidentifications. The lineup sometimes takes place in a room for the purpose, one which may feature a
433:
Subtle framing characteristics influence a witness' response to a question. For example, if a police officer asks which of the individuals in a lineup committed the crime, the wording of the question implies that one of the individuals is guilty, in a manner analogous to
455:
of their identification, and other factors, even when witnesses believed the feedback had not influenced their report. During questioning or viewing pictures in a lineup, it was found that an eyewitness made a tentative judgement that a certain picture
459:
be the guilty suspect, to which an officer administering the lineup answered, "okay." However, upon returning to that picture months later at trial, the witness expressed no doubt that the previously hypothesized picture represented the suspect.
996:
441:
Additionally, the overwhelming majority of witnesses will identify a suspect from a lineup even if the actual perpetrator is not included in the lineup, often depending on how the instructions for choosing a suspect are presented. See also
360:
The study showed that interactive viewing behavior differed between children who made correct and incorrect identifications, suggesting that even young children can provide reliable identifications when using advanced lineup
103:
The sequential method is considered more accurate than simultaneous lineups because it prevents the witness from looking at all the suspects and merely selecting the person that most resembles the guilty person.
1021:
Winsor, Alice A.; Flowe, Heather D.; Seale-Carlisle, Travis M.; Killeen, Isabella M.; Hett, Danielle; Jores, Theo; Ingham, Madeleine; Lee, Byron P.; Stevens, Laura M.; Colloff, Melissa F. (November 2021).
281:
The study demonstrated that active exploration and pose reinstatement significantly boosted discriminability, with interactive lineups outperforming both photo and video lineups across different encoding
321:
The study highlighted the importance of active exploration, pose reinstatement, and simultaneous comparison of faces, suggesting that these factors contribute to better witness discrimination accuracy.
268:
lineup procedure (interactive, photo, or video) and encoding angle (front or profile). Participants were presented with twelve lineups, each containing a target-present and a target-absent condition.
365:
This research highlights the potential of interactive lineups in calibrating child witness testimonies, challenging the traditional view that children’s identifications are inherently unreliable.
1233:
Ross, David R.; Ceci, Stephen J.; Dunning, David; Toglia, Michael P. (1994). "Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person".
935:
Lindsay, R. L., Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Leach, A., & Bertrand, M. I. (2009). "Beyond sequential presentation: Misconceptions and misrepresentations of sequential lineups".
776:
Colloff, Melissa F.; Seale-Carlisle, Travis M.; KaroÄźlu, Nilda; Rockey, James C.; Smith, Harriet M. J.; Smith, Lisa; Maltby, John; Yaremenko, Sergii; Flowe, Heather D. (July 9, 2021).
155:
reported that Wells will continue to "examine the data gathered to gauge the level of certainty of witnesses and the effect of factors like cross-racial identification on accuracy."
704:
Meyer, Marlene; Colloff, Melissa F.; Bennett, Tia C.; Hirata, Edward; Kohl, Amelia; Stevens, Laura M.; Smith, Harriet M. J.; Staudigl, Tobias; Flowe, Heather D. (October 10, 2023).
275:
For front encoding, simultaneous interactive lineups increased correct identification rates by 35% compared to sequential video and 27% compared to simultaneous photo lineups.
1541:
642:
902:
Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). "Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: a meta-analysis and policy discussion".
318:
Simultaneous-joint interactive lineups further improved correct identification rates by an additional 23% compared to sequential-independent interactive lineups.
1384:
Wells, Gary L.; Bradfield, Amy L. (1998). "'Good, you identified the suspect': Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience".
868:
Cates, P. (2011). "Sequential lineups are more accurate, according to ground-breaking report on eyewitness identification procedures". Retrieved from
1534:
115:
417:
Witnesses are more likely to correctly identify the faces of those with whom they share common features, such as race, age, and gender. See also
357:
Even the youngest children (ages 4-6) demonstrated reliable memory when appropriate metacognitive measures, such as viewing behavior, were used.
438:
in court testimony. This suggestion increases the likelihood that the witness will pick someone from the lineup without positive recognition.
325:
This research underlined the potential of interactive lineups to significantly enhance the effectiveness of police identification procedures.
286:
These findings suggest that interactive lineups offer significant improvements over traditional methods in terms of identification accuracy.
347:
identified a person from a lineup using an interactive lineup system, where they could rotate the faces to view them from different angles.
955:
Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). "Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation".
1527:
315:
Sequential interactive lineups increased correct identification rates of guilty suspects by 18% compared to sequential static lineups.
193:
different videotapes, different lineups, and different instructions. There were 175 participants, all undergraduate college students.
1417:
Malpass, Roy S.; Devine, Patricia G. (1981). "Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender".
469:
When fillers are highly dissimilar to the suspect, it increases the chances that witnesses erroneously identify an innocent person.
1876:
915:
Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Dailey, S. B., & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). "Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage".
535:
1276:
1139:
625:
1795:
1290:
Wells, Gary L.; Olson, Elizabeth A. (2001). "The other-race effect in eyewitness identification: What do we do about it?".
241:
photo or live lineups by allowing witnesses to manipulate the view to better match their memory of a suspect's appearance.
706:"Enabling witnesses to actively explore faces and reinstate study-test pose during a lineup increases discriminability"
392:
with DNA evidence, 258 of these people (roughly 3 out of every 4) were involved in mistaken eyewitness identification.
278:
For profile encoding, correct identification rates improved by 75% compared to photo and 60% compared to video lineups.
1211:
1853:
1360:
83:
to allow a witness to remain anonymous, and may include markings on the wall to aid identifying the person's height.
1822:
1944:
17:
1169:
1891:
1127:
1896:
1080:
405:, where the familiarity is misattributed and unconsciously transferred to an innocent bystander. See also
1323:
Chance, J. E., & Goldstein, A. G. (1996). "The other-race effect and eyewitness identification".
443:
118:(VIPER), a digital system wherein witnesses view video recordings of suspects and unrelated volunteers.
1914:
1456:
Colloff, Melissa F.; Wilson, Brent M.; Seale-Carlisle, Travis M.; Wixted, John T. (February 23, 2021).
1871:
354:
A strong confidence-accuracy relationship was observed from age 10, with emerging accuracy from age 7.
517:
212:
Mistaken rate in target-absent condition: 19% for sequential lineups and 39% for sequential lineups.
36:
100:
photo-lineup that involve the witness sequentially viewing photographs rather than simultaneously.
1754:
200:
Correct identification rate: 80% for sequential lineups and 76% for simultaneous lineups (total).
151:
The study of sequential lineups is far from being finished and there is still much left to prove.
402:
1438:
1405:
1311:
1185:, December 1960, p. 118, as quoted in Ed Cray, "Ethnic and Place Names as Derisive Adjectives",
883:
Schwartz, J. (2011). "Changes to police lineup procedures cut eyewitness mistakes, study says".
1764:
1559:
1886:
1702:
406:
1269:
Understanding bystander misidentifications: The role of familiarity and contextual knowledge
1742:
1707:
1619:
1594:
1469:
789:
717:
107:
A "show-up" is another alternative, in which a suspect is individually shown to a witness.
74:
The suspect, along with several "fillers" or "foils"—people of similar height, build, and
8:
1759:
422:
1473:
793:
746:
721:
705:
308:
simultaneous interactive lineups (where faces could be moved independently or jointly).
1687:
1679:
1629:
1599:
1589:
1550:
1500:
1457:
1193:
1056:
1023:
818:
778:"Perpetrator pose reinstatement during a lineup test increases discrimination accuracy"
777:
647:
593:
568:
1838:
1712:
1697:
1634:
1519:
1505:
1487:
1434:
1401:
1364:
1356:
1307:
1272:
1250:
1165:
1135:
1108:
1100:
1061:
1043:
823:
805:
751:
733:
677:
621:
598:
540:
418:
975:
Steblay, N. M., Dysart, J. E., Fulero, S. S., & Lindsay, R. L. (2002). Erratum.
1624:
1495:
1477:
1426:
1393:
1299:
1242:
1092:
1051:
1035:
980:
960:
940:
920:
813:
797:
741:
725:
588:
580:
545:
478:
435:
48:
1430:
841:
203:
78% for sequential lineups and 80% for simultaneous lineups when cues were strong.
67:'s putative identification of a suspect is confirmed to a level that can count as
1807:
1801:
1609:
1604:
1303:
56:
1324:
206:
84% for sequential lineups and 58% for simultaneous lineups when cues were weak.
168:
suspect was present; the error rate increased only when the suspect was absent.
1848:
1748:
1639:
1614:
1584:
1579:
1397:
1246:
1096:
964:
801:
710:
Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
669:
499:
375:
80:
68:
1901:
1353:
Cognitive psychology : connecting mind, research, and everyday experience
984:
1938:
1731:
1491:
1254:
1104:
1047:
944:
809:
737:
620:(2nd ed.). Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. p. 176.
141:
1482:
729:
1843:
1817:
1509:
1368:
1181:
Milt
Machlin and William Read Woodfield, "Chessman Case Cracks Wide Open",
1112:
1065:
997:"Not the usual suspects: New interactive lineup boosts eyewitness accuracy"
827:
755:
602:
1881:
1858:
1785:
1780:
1720:
1081:"Children's metacognitive judgments in an eyewitness identification task"
1928:
1790:
1737:
1725:
1668:
1649:
1197:
1039:
584:
75:
1271:, Adult Eyewitness Testimony, Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–79,
924:
1923:
1662:
846:
869:
775:
1644:
1568:
1455:
64:
1020:
32:
1574:
670:"Identification Procedures & Preparing the Case for Court"
1079:
Keast, Amber; Brewer, Neil; Wells, Gary L. (August 1, 2007).
60:
618:
Legal Ease: A Guide to
Criminal Law, Evidence, and Procedure
1812:
1692:
569:"Eyewitness Identification: Live, Photo, and Video Lineups"
888:
703:
111:
reinstatement - which improves discrimination accuracy.
1024:"Child Witness Expressions of Certainty Are Informative"
216:
identification rate is higher for simultaneous lineups.
1458:"Optimizing the selection of fillers in police lineups"
1126:
Powell, Martine; Garry, Maryanne; Brewer, Neil (2013),
1549:
1912:
1232:
1658:
643:"Study Fuels a Growing Debate Over Police Lineups"
518:"Increasing Eyewitness Accuracy in Police Lineups"
1125:
1936:
1078:
116:Video Identification Parade Electronic Recording
1462:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
1535:
1325:https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-99115-006
898:
896:
536:"Where do police get the people for lineups?"
412:
1134:, Thompson Reuters, pp. 65.10–65.5072,
834:
386:
1028:Journal of Experimental Psychology. General
917:Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
879:
877:
615:
1542:
1528:
893:
131:do not know the total number of suspects.
1499:
1481:
1055:
817:
745:
592:
289:
158:
1085:Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
874:
616:Campbell, Andrea; Ohm, Ralph C. (2007).
425:, sex differences in eyewitness memory.
328:
31:
1335:Myers, David G, Twenge, Jean M (2019).
1212:"Injecting Science into Police Lineups"
1209:
640:
249:
27:Criminal justice identification process
14:
1937:
235:
1523:
1451:
1449:
1447:
1380:
1378:
1376:
1347:
1345:
771:
769:
767:
765:
699:
697:
695:
566:
500:"Recommendations for police lineups"
121:
937:Legal and Criminological Psychology
544:. November 21, 2006. Archived from
497:
24:
1444:
1373:
1342:
1339:, New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
1292:Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
904:Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
842:"Police to use virtual ID parades"
573:Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
522:American Psychological Association
504:American Psychological Association
25:
1956:
1854:Evidence law in the United States
1210:Mikulak, Anna (August 31, 2017).
762:
692:
39:in the center of a police lineup.
1922:
1661:
641:Zernike, Kate (April 19, 2006).
1411:
1329:
1317:
1284:
1261:
1226:
1203:
1175:
1154:
1119:
1072:
1014:
989:
969:
949:
929:
909:
870:http://www.innocenceproject.org
862:
428:
90:
1708:Deferred prosecution agreement
662:
634:
609:
560:
528:
510:
491:
395:
13:
1:
1419:Journal of Applied Psychology
1386:Journal of Applied Psychology
1235:Journal of Applied Psychology
957:Journal of Applied Psychology
674:Administration of Justice 104
484:
381:
244:
7:
1431:10.1037//0021-9010.66.4.482
1162:Courtroom criminal evidence
472:
449:
444:Framing effect (psychology)
10:
1961:
1398:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.360
1304:10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.230
1247:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.918
1097:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.01.007
965:10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.281
802:10.1038/s41598-021-92509-0
463:
413:Own-group recognition bias
221:Steblay, Dysart, and Wells
180:
134:
114:Many UK police forces use
59:) is a process by which a
1867:
1831:
1823:Presentence investigation
1773:
1678:
1656:
1558:
1192::1:27–34 (January 1962),
387:Limitations of technology
374:to have been used in the
171:
37:Fredrik Fasting Torgersen
1160:Edward J. Imwinkelried,
1001:University of Birmingham
945:10.1348/135532508X382104
368:
187:Cutler and Penrod (1988)
1483:10.1073/pnas.2017292118
985:10.1023/A:1016339523615
889:https://www.nytimes.com
730:10.1073/pnas.2301845120
403:source-monitoring error
1945:Criminal investigation
1765:Statute of limitations
1560:Criminal investigation
1279:, retrieved 2019-12-02
1128:"Eyewitness Testimony"
977:Law and Human Behavior
567:Lamb, Michael (2018).
159:Sequential lineup laps
40:
1703:Criminal jurisdiction
1351:Goldstein, E. Bruce,
1267:Read, J. Don (1994),
1164:, 2nd edition, 1993,
407:Familiarity heuristic
291:Colloff et al. (2021)
35:
1743:Inquisitorial system
1680:Criminal prosecution
1620:Reasonable suspicion
1595:Exigent circumstance
330:Winsor et al. (2021)
1760:Preliminary hearing
1474:2021PNAS..11817292C
794:2021NatSR..1113830C
722:2023PNAS..12001845M
716:(41): e2301845120.
423:in-group favoritism
251:Meyer et al. (2023)
236:Interactive Lineups
1688:Adversarial system
1630:Search and seizure
1600:Knock-and-announce
1551:Criminal procedure
1468:(8): e2017292118.
1040:10.1037/xge0001049
919:, 15(2), 140–152.
885:The New York Times
782:Scientific Reports
648:The New York Times
585:10.1037/law0000164
196:The results were:
153:The New York Times
41:
1910:
1909:
1892:Wikimedia Commons
1839:Criminal defenses
1774:Charges and pleas
1698:Bill of attainder
1635:Search of persons
1337:Social Psychology
1277:978-0-521-43255-9
1141:978-0-455-21078-0
1034:(11): 2387–2407.
887:. Retrieved from
678:Rio Hondo College
627:978-0-398-07731-0
548:on April 30, 2008
541:The Straight Dope
436:leading questions
419:cross-race effect
128:sequential lineup
122:Sequential lineup
16:(Redirected from
1952:
1927:
1926:
1918:
1671:
1666:
1665:
1625:Right to silence
1544:
1537:
1530:
1521:
1520:
1514:
1513:
1503:
1485:
1453:
1442:
1415:
1409:
1382:
1371:
1349:
1340:
1333:
1327:
1321:
1315:
1288:
1282:
1265:
1259:
1258:
1230:
1224:
1223:
1207:
1201:
1187:Western Folklore
1179:
1173:
1158:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1148:
1123:
1117:
1116:
1076:
1070:
1069:
1059:
1018:
1012:
1011:
1009:
1007:
993:
987:
973:
967:
953:
947:
939:, 14(1), 31–34.
933:
927:
925:10.1037/a0015082
913:
907:
900:
891:
881:
872:
866:
860:
859:
857:
855:
838:
832:
831:
821:
773:
760:
759:
749:
701:
690:
689:
687:
685:
666:
660:
659:
657:
655:
638:
632:
631:
613:
607:
606:
596:
564:
558:
557:
555:
553:
532:
526:
525:
514:
508:
507:
495:
479:Facial composite
343:
342:
338:
304:
303:
299:
264:
263:
259:
49:American English
21:
1960:
1959:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1921:
1913:
1911:
1906:
1863:
1827:
1808:Peremptory plea
1802:Nolo contendere
1769:
1674:
1667:
1660:
1654:
1610:Pretextual stop
1605:Miranda warning
1554:
1553:(investigation)
1548:
1518:
1517:
1454:
1445:
1416:
1412:
1383:
1374:
1350:
1343:
1334:
1330:
1322:
1318:
1289:
1285:
1266:
1262:
1231:
1227:
1208:
1204:
1180:
1176:
1159:
1155:
1146:
1144:
1142:
1132:Expert Evidence
1124:
1120:
1077:
1073:
1019:
1015:
1005:
1003:
995:
994:
990:
974:
970:
959:, 73, 281–299.
954:
950:
934:
930:
914:
910:
901:
894:
882:
875:
867:
863:
853:
851:
850:. April 1, 2004
840:
839:
835:
774:
763:
702:
693:
683:
681:
668:
667:
663:
653:
651:
639:
635:
628:
614:
610:
565:
561:
551:
549:
534:
533:
529:
516:
515:
511:
496:
492:
487:
475:
466:
452:
431:
415:
398:
389:
384:
371:
344:
340:
336:
334:
333:
305:
301:
297:
295:
294:
265:
261:
257:
255:
254:
247:
238:
183:
174:
161:
137:
124:
93:
57:British English
53:identity parade
28:
23:
22:
18:Identity parade
15:
12:
11:
5:
1958:
1948:
1947:
1932:
1931:
1908:
1907:
1905:
1904:
1899:
1894:
1889:
1884:
1879:
1874:
1868:
1865:
1864:
1862:
1861:
1856:
1851:
1846:
1841:
1835:
1833:
1829:
1828:
1826:
1825:
1820:
1815:
1810:
1805:
1798:
1793:
1788:
1783:
1777:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1768:
1767:
1762:
1757:
1752:
1749:Nolle prosequi
1745:
1740:
1735:
1728:
1723:
1718:
1710:
1705:
1700:
1695:
1690:
1684:
1682:
1676:
1675:
1673:
1672:
1657:
1655:
1653:
1652:
1647:
1642:
1640:Search warrant
1637:
1632:
1627:
1622:
1617:
1615:Probable cause
1612:
1607:
1602:
1597:
1592:
1587:
1585:Consent search
1582:
1580:Arrest warrant
1577:
1572:
1564:
1562:
1556:
1555:
1547:
1546:
1539:
1532:
1524:
1516:
1515:
1443:
1425:(4): 482–489.
1410:
1392:(3): 360–376.
1372:
1341:
1328:
1316:
1298:(1): 230–246.
1283:
1260:
1241:(6): 918–930.
1225:
1202:
1174:
1153:
1140:
1118:
1091:(4): 286–314.
1071:
1013:
988:
968:
948:
928:
908:
892:
873:
861:
833:
761:
691:
661:
633:
626:
608:
579:(3): 307–325.
559:
527:
509:
489:
488:
486:
483:
482:
481:
474:
471:
465:
462:
451:
448:
430:
427:
414:
411:
397:
394:
388:
385:
383:
380:
376:Caryl Chessman
370:
367:
363:
362:
358:
355:
332:
327:
323:
322:
319:
316:
293:
288:
284:
283:
279:
276:
253:
248:
246:
243:
237:
234:
225:
224:
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
190:
189:
182:
179:
173:
170:
164:their answer.
160:
157:
136:
133:
123:
120:
92:
89:
81:one-way mirror
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1957:
1946:
1943:
1942:
1940:
1930:
1925:
1920:
1919:
1916:
1903:
1900:
1898:
1895:
1893:
1890:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1880:
1878:
1875:
1873:
1870:
1869:
1866:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1852:
1850:
1847:
1845:
1842:
1840:
1837:
1836:
1834:
1832:Related areas
1830:
1824:
1821:
1819:
1816:
1814:
1811:
1809:
1806:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1797:
1794:
1792:
1789:
1787:
1784:
1782:
1779:
1778:
1776:
1772:
1766:
1763:
1761:
1758:
1756:
1753:
1751:
1750:
1746:
1744:
1741:
1739:
1736:
1734:
1733:
1732:Habeas corpus
1729:
1727:
1724:
1722:
1719:
1717:
1715:
1714:Ex post facto
1711:
1709:
1706:
1704:
1701:
1699:
1696:
1694:
1691:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1683:
1681:
1677:
1670:
1664:
1659:
1651:
1648:
1646:
1643:
1641:
1638:
1636:
1633:
1631:
1628:
1626:
1623:
1621:
1618:
1616:
1613:
1611:
1608:
1606:
1603:
1601:
1598:
1596:
1593:
1591:
1588:
1586:
1583:
1581:
1578:
1576:
1573:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1565:
1563:
1561:
1557:
1552:
1545:
1540:
1538:
1533:
1531:
1526:
1525:
1522:
1511:
1507:
1502:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1484:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1452:
1450:
1448:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1414:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1381:
1379:
1377:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1361:1-337-40827-1
1358:
1354:
1348:
1346:
1338:
1332:
1326:
1320:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1287:
1281:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1264:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1229:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1206:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1178:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1157:
1143:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1122:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1075:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1017:
1002:
998:
992:
986:
982:
978:
972:
966:
962:
958:
952:
946:
942:
938:
932:
926:
922:
918:
912:
906:, 17, 99–139.
905:
899:
897:
890:
886:
880:
878:
871:
865:
849:
848:
843:
837:
829:
825:
820:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
772:
770:
768:
766:
757:
753:
748:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
700:
698:
696:
680:. August 2001
679:
675:
671:
665:
650:
649:
644:
637:
629:
623:
619:
612:
604:
600:
595:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
563:
547:
543:
542:
537:
531:
523:
519:
513:
505:
501:
494:
490:
480:
477:
476:
470:
461:
458:
447:
445:
439:
437:
426:
424:
420:
410:
408:
404:
393:
379:
377:
366:
359:
356:
353:
352:
351:
348:
339:
331:
326:
320:
317:
314:
313:
312:
309:
300:
292:
287:
280:
277:
274:
273:
272:
269:
260:
252:
242:
233:
229:
222:
219:
218:
217:
213:
205:
202:
201:
199:
198:
197:
194:
188:
185:
184:
178:
169:
165:
156:
154:
149:
145:
143:
132:
129:
119:
117:
112:
108:
105:
101:
97:
88:
84:
82:
77:
72:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
45:police lineup
38:
34:
30:
19:
1844:Criminal law
1818:Plea bargain
1800:
1755:Precognition
1747:
1730:
1713:
1567:
1465:
1461:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1389:
1385:
1352:
1336:
1331:
1319:
1295:
1291:
1286:
1280:
1268:
1263:
1238:
1234:
1228:
1219:
1216:Aps Observer
1215:
1205:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1161:
1156:
1145:, retrieved
1131:
1121:
1088:
1084:
1074:
1031:
1027:
1016:
1004:. Retrieved
1000:
991:
976:
971:
956:
951:
936:
931:
916:
911:
903:
884:
864:
852:. Retrieved
845:
836:
788:(1): 13830.
785:
781:
713:
709:
682:. Retrieved
673:
664:
652:. Retrieved
646:
636:
617:
611:
576:
572:
562:
550:. Retrieved
546:the original
539:
530:
521:
512:
503:
498:Dittman, M.
493:
467:
456:
453:
440:
432:
429:Framing bias
416:
399:
390:
372:
364:
349:
345:
329:
324:
310:
306:
290:
285:
270:
266:
250:
239:
230:
226:
220:
214:
211:
195:
191:
186:
175:
166:
162:
152:
150:
146:
140:Project and
138:
127:
125:
113:
109:
106:
102:
98:
94:
91:Alternatives
85:
73:
52:
44:
42:
29:
1902:Wikiversity
1859:Legal abuse
1796:Information
1786:Arraignment
1781:Alford plea
1721:Extradition
396:Familiarity
282:conditions.
1887:WikiSource
1872:Wiktionary
1791:Indictment
1738:Indictment
1726:Grand jury
1669:Law portal
1650:Terry stop
1369:1055681278
1170:1558341277
1147:August 26,
1006:August 26,
485:References
401:This is a
382:Error rate
142:Gary Wells
76:complexion
71:at trial.
63:victim or
1882:Wikiquote
1877:Wikibooks
1590:Detention
1492:0027-8424
1439:0021-9010
1406:1939-1854
1312:1076-8971
1255:1939-1854
1105:0022-0965
1048:0096-3445
979:, 26(4),
854:April 18,
810:2045-2322
738:1091-6490
350:Results:
311:Results:
271:Results:
1939:Category
1897:Wikinews
1849:Evidence
1510:33593908
1172:, p. 934
1113:17512942
1066:34498905
847:BBC News
828:34244529
756:37782811
747:10576112
684:July 23,
603:30100702
473:See also
450:Feedback
361:systems.
69:evidence
1645:Suspect
1569:Arguido
1501:7923643
1470:Bibcode
1198:1520639
1057:8721974
819:8271008
790:Bibcode
718:Bibcode
654:July 7,
594:6078069
552:July 7,
464:Fillers
245:Studies
181:Studies
135:History
65:witness
1915:Portal
1575:Arrest
1508:
1498:
1490:
1437:
1404:
1367:
1359:
1310:
1275:
1253:
1196:
1183:Argosy
1168:
1138:
1111:
1103:
1064:
1054:
1046:
826:
816:
808:
754:
744:
736:
624:
601:
591:
378:case.
335:": -->
296:": -->
256:": -->
223:(2011)
172:US law
1194:JSTOR
457:might
369:Fraud
61:crime
51:) or
1813:Plea
1693:Bail
1506:PMID
1488:ISSN
1435:ISSN
1402:ISSN
1365:OCLC
1357:ISBN
1308:ISSN
1273:ISBN
1251:ISSN
1222:(7).
1166:ISBN
1149:2024
1136:ISBN
1109:PMID
1101:ISSN
1062:PMID
1044:ISSN
1008:2024
856:2012
824:PMID
806:ISSN
752:PMID
734:ISSN
686:2011
656:2007
622:ISBN
599:PMID
554:2007
337:edit
298:edit
258:edit
55:(in
47:(in
1929:Law
1716:law
1496:PMC
1478:doi
1466:118
1427:doi
1394:doi
1300:doi
1243:doi
1093:doi
1052:PMC
1036:doi
1032:150
981:doi
961:doi
941:doi
921:doi
814:PMC
798:doi
742:PMC
726:doi
714:120
589:PMC
581:doi
1941::
1504:.
1494:.
1486:.
1476:.
1464:.
1460:.
1446:^
1433:.
1423:66
1421:.
1400:.
1390:83
1388:.
1375:^
1363:.
1355:.
1344:^
1306:.
1294:.
1249:.
1239:79
1237:.
1220:30
1218:.
1214:.
1190:21
1130:,
1107:.
1099:.
1089:97
1087:.
1083:.
1060:.
1050:.
1042:.
1030:.
1026:.
999:.
895:^
876:^
844:.
822:.
812:.
804:.
796:.
786:11
784:.
780:.
764:^
750:.
740:.
732:.
724:.
712:.
708:.
694:^
676:.
672:.
645:.
597:.
587:.
577:24
575:.
571:.
538:.
520:.
502:.
446:.
421:,
409:.
126:A
43:A
1917::
1543:e
1536:t
1529:v
1512:.
1480::
1472::
1441:.
1429::
1408:.
1396::
1314:.
1302::
1296:7
1257:.
1245::
1200:.
1115:.
1095::
1068:.
1038::
1010:.
983::
963::
943::
923::
858:.
830:.
800::
792::
758:.
728::
720::
688:.
658:.
630:.
605:.
583::
556:.
524:.
506:.
341:]
302:]
262:]
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
