Department of Psychology, Augsburg College, 2211 Riverside Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2011 Feb;35(1):1-12. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9207-7.
A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit secured 100 eyewitness identification reports from Evanston, Illinois, one of three cities of the Illinois Pilot Program. The files provide empirical evidence regarding three methodological aspects of the Program's comparison of non-blind simultaneous to double-blind sequential lineups. (1) A-priori differences existed between lineup conditions. For example, the simultaneous non-blind lineup condition was more likely to involve witnesses who had already identified the suspect in a previous lineup or who knew the offender (non-stranger identifications), and this condition also entailed shorter delays between event and lineup. (2) Verbatim eyewitness comments were recorded more often in double-blind sequential than in non-blind simultaneous lineup reports (83% vs. 39%). (3) Effective lineup structure was used equally in the two lineup conditions.
根据《信息自由法案》提起的诉讼,从伊利诺伊州埃文斯顿(Evanston)获得了 100 份目击证人鉴定报告,该城市是伊利诺伊试点项目的三个城市之一。这些档案提供了有关该项目对非盲目同时与双盲顺序列队进行比较的三个方法方面的经验证据。(1) 列队条件存在先验差异。例如,同时非盲目列队条件更有可能涉及已经在前一个列队中识别出嫌疑人或认识犯罪人的证人(非陌生人识别),而且这种条件还意味着事件和列队之间的延迟更短。(2) 逐字记录的目击证人评论在双盲顺序列队报告中比在非盲目同时列队报告中更常见(83%比 39%)。(3) 在两种列队条件下,均采用了有效的列队结构。