Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 22–27 | Cite as

The Illinois Field Study: A Significant Contribution to Understanding Real World Eyewitness Identification Issues

  • Sheri H. Mecklenburg
  • Patricia J. Bailey
  • Mark R. Larson
Original Article

The Illinois Pilot Program on Eyewitness Identification

In 2006, Illinois law enforcement released the Report to the Illinois Legislature: Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential, Double-Blind Lineup Procedures (“Illinois Pilot Report”), setting forth the data from a year-long, multi-jurisdictional field study examining the efficacy of the sequential, double-blind lineup method. The Illinois data showed that the sequential, double-blind lineups had a known error rate, measured by filler identifications, of 9.2%, whereas the traditional (i.e., simultaneous, non-blind) lineups had a known error rate, also measured by filler identifications, of 2.7%.

The Illinois Pilot Report represents a significant advancement in the study of eyewitness identification. Prior to the Illinois Pilot Report, the advocates of the sequential, double-blind lineups relied upon laboratory studies to support calls for policy changes in eyewitness identification. Some practitioners viewed the laboratory studies with...


Eyewitness identification Lineups Sequential presentation Double-blind lineups Field studies 


  1. Cutler, B., & Penrod, S. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ebbesen, E., & Finklea, K. (2006). In response to the Illinois Pilot Project on simultaneous v. sequential lineups. Loyola University School of Law Public Interest Law Reporter, 11(2), 9–12, 27–30.Google Scholar
  3. Illinois Pilot Report (2006). Report to the Illinois Legislature: Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential, Double-Blind Lineup Procedures,; Scholar
  4. Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N., & Caligiuri, H. (2006). Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin county’s blind sequential lineup pilot project. Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal, 4, 381–413.Google Scholar
  5. Lindsay, R., & Wells, G. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lindsay, R., Lea, J., Nosworthy, G., Fulford, J., Hector, J., Van Le, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 796–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Malpass, R. (2006). Notes on the Illinois Pilot Program on sequential double blind identification procedures. Loyola University School of Law Public Interest Law Reporter, 11(2), 5–8, 39–41.Google Scholar
  8. McQuiston-Surrett, D. E., Malpass, R., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. Simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data and theory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12(2), 137–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to high intense stress. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 265–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Phillips, M., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind lineup administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 940–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schacter, D., Dawes, R., Jacoby, L., Kahneman, D., Lempert, R., Roediger, H., & Rosenthal, R. (2007). Policy Forum: Studying eyewitness investigations in the field, Law and Human Behavior, 31(5) (this issue).Google Scholar
  12. Sporer, S., et al. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: Meta-analytical comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 459–473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. (2002). Erratum. Law and Human Behavior, 26(4), 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Steblay, N. (2007, February). Harvard Law Institute Webconference.Google Scholar
  16. Wells, G. L. (2006, April). New policies, new practices: Fresh perspectives on eyewitness identification, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law Conference.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheri H. Mecklenburg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Patricia J. Bailey
    • 3
  • Mark R. Larson
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Criminal DivisionUnited States Attorney’s OfficeChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential, Double-Blind Lineup ProceduresChicagoUSA
  3. 3.County District Attorney’s Office (Manhattan)New YorkUSA
  4. 4.Criminal Division King County Prosecuting Attorney’s OfficeSeattleUSA
  5. 5.Technical Working Group on Eyewitness IdentificationNational Institute of Justice, United States Department of JusticeRockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations