Abstract
The medium used to present lineup members for eyewitness identification varies according to the location of the criminal investigation. Although in some jurisdictions live lineups remain the default procedure, elsewhere this practice has been replaced with photo or video lineups. This divergence leads to two possibilities: Either some jurisdictions are not using the lineup medium that best facilitates accurate eyewitness identification or the lineup medium has no bearing on the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Photo and video lineups are the more practical options, but proponents of live lineups believe witnesses make better identification decisions when the lineup members are physically present. Here, the authors argue against this live superiority hypothesis. To be superior in practice, the benefits of live presentation would have to be substantial enough to overcome the inherent difficulties of organizing and administering a live lineup. The review of the literature suggests that even in experimental settings, where these difficulties can be minimized, it is not clear that live lineups are superior. The authors conclude that live lineups are rarely the best option in practice and encourage further research to establish which nonlive medium provides the best balance between probative value and practical utility.
Highlights
In spite of our efforts to be as charitable as possible to the live superiority hypothesis, we found little reason to support it
One might argue that a live advantage in the empirical literature has been missed because researchers tend to use short exposure durations and longer durations would be needed for witnesses to encode a perpetrator’s dynamic identity signature. This line of argument would only explain why we have not found an advantage of live over photo lineups
Contrary to the live superiority hypothesis, we identified several real-world confounds associated with live lineups that could reduce their reliability
Summary
The medium used to present lineup members for eyewitness identification varies according to the location of the criminal investigation. The primary determinant of the identification procedures in these cases was the jurisdiction of investigation: Groblersdal is in South Africa, where live lineups are the convention; Royal Victoria Hospital is in Northern Ireland, where police use video lineups; and Chilliwack is in Canada, where photo lineups are the norm. Live lineups are preferred in some jurisdictions, which seems to be the consequence of a live superiority hypothesis: The belief that live presentation of lineup members yields the best eyewitness identification outcomes. There are theoretical grounds to predict that an eyewitness would fare best at a live lineup, where the lineup members are observed in their entirety and can even be seen walking or talking Compare this to a photo lineup, normally composed of static mugshots, and the notion of live superiority seems all the more plausible. What we do find are numerous factors that could compromise the reliability of eyewitness identification from live lineups
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
