References

• Robert Buckhout, ‘Eyewitness memory’ (1974) 231 Scientific American 23. google scholar
• Steven E Clark, ‘A Re-examination of the Effects of Biased Lineup instructions in eyewitness identification’ (2005) 29 Law and Human Behavior 575. google scholar
• Edward Conners, Thomas Lundregan, Neal Miller and Tom McEwen,. Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial (U. S. Department of Justice 1996). google scholar
• Stephen Darling, Tim Valentine, and Amina Memon, ‘Selection of lineup fillers in operational contexts’ (2008) 22 Applied Cognitive Psychology 159. google scholar
• Anthony N Doob and Herschi M Kirshenbaum, ‘Bias in police lineups-partial remembering’ (1973) 1 Journal of Police Science and Administration, 287. google scholar
• Avraham M Levi, ‘Are defendants guilty if they were chosen in a lineup?’ (1998) 22 Law and Human Behavior 389. google scholar
• Avraham M Levi, ‘An Analysis of Multiple Choices in MSL Lineups, and a Comparison with Simultaneous and Sequential ones’ (2006a) 12 Psychology, Crime, & Law 273. google scholar
• Avraham M Levi, ‘A Comparison Between Large Simultaneous and MSL Lineups, with Photos Viewed in Sets of Six’ In K Nixon (Ed.) Forensic recall and eyewitness testimony (A-IP Publishing 2006b). google scholar
• Avraham M Levi, ‘Evidence for Moving to an 84-Person Photo Lineup’ (2007) Journal of Experimental Criminology 377. google scholar
• Avraham M Levi, ‘Much Better than the Sequential lineup: A 120-person lineup’ (2012) 18 Psychology, Crime & Law 631. google scholar
• Avraham M Levi, ‘When the relative judgment theory proved to be false’ (2015) 5 Psychology and Law 141. google scholar
• Avraham M Levi, ‘Comparing the English Video Lineup with the 48-Person Lineup’ (2017) 5 Universal Journal of Psychology 239. google scholar
• Roberto Cameron Lodge Lindsay and Gary L Wells, ‘Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation’ (1985) 70 Journal of Applied Psychology 556. google scholar
• Clara Alison Elizabeth Luus and Gary L Wells, ‘Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups’ (1991) 15 Law and Human Behavior 43. google scholar
• Roy S Malpass and Patricia G Devine, ‘Eyewitnes identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender’ (1981) 66 Journal of Applied Psychology 482. google scholar
• Steven Penrod Eyewitness guessing and choosing (Sarmac Conference, Bethel College, Maine 2006). google scholar
• Sean Pryke, RCL Lindsay, JE Dysart and P Dupuis, ‘Multiple independent identification decisions: A method of calibrating eyewitness identifications’ (2004) 89 Journal of Applied Psychology 73. google scholar
• Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer Actual innocence: When justice goes wrong and how to make it right (Signet 2001). google scholar
• Nancy M Steblay, ‘Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects’ (1997) 21 Law and Human Behavior 283. google scholar
• The State of Israel v. Kedoshim, Tel Aviv District Court 40371 (2001) Tim Valentine, Alan Pickering, and Stephan Darling,’ Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups’ (2003) 17 Applied Cognitive Psychology 969. google scholar
• Walpole, Ronald E. Introduction to Statistics (Macmillan 1968). google scholar
• Gary L Wells, Mark Small, Steven Penrod, Roy S Malpass, Solomon M Fulero, and Clara Allison Elizabeth Brimacombe, ‘Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads’ (1998) 22 Law and Human Behavior 603. google scholar
• Gary L Wells, Andrew M Smith and Laura Smalarz, ‘ROC analysis of lineups obscures information that is critical for both theoretical understanding and applied purpose’ (2015) 4 Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 324. google scholar

Citations