ClarkS. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238–259.
2.
ClarkS. E.BrowerG. L.RosenthalR.HicksJ. M.MorelandM. B. (2013). Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification and eyewitness confidence. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 158–165.
3.
ClarkS. E.MorelandM. B.GronlundS. D. (2014). Evolution of the empirical and theoretical foundations of eyewitness identification reform. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 251–267.
4.
Federal Rules of Evidence (2017). Grand Rapids, MI: Michigan Legal Publishing.
5.
GronlundS. D.CarlsonC. A.NeuschatzJ. S.GoodsellC. A.WetmoreS. A.WootenA.GrahamM. (2012). Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 221–228. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.09.003
6.
GronlundS. D.MickesL.WixtedJ. T.ClarkS. E. (2015). Conducting an eyewitness lineup: How the research got it wrong. In RossB. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 63, pp. 1–43). Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
7.
Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 1977.
8.
MickesL.Seale-CarlisleT. M.WetmoreS. A.GronlundS. D.ClarkS. E.CarlsonC. A., . . . WixtedJ. T. (2016). Using lineup instructions to manipulate response bias and its relationship to the confidence-based ROC in eyewitness identification. Manuscript submitted for publication.
9.
National Institute of Justice. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
10.
National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
11.
SporerS. L.PenrodS.ReadD.CutlerB. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315–327.
12.
SteblayN. K. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–297.
13.
SteblayN. K.DysartJ. E.WellsG. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99–139.
14.
Tehan vs. US Ex Rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 1966.
15.
WixtedJ. T.MickesL.ClarkS. E.GronlundS. D.RoedigerH. L. (2015). Initial eyewitness confidence reliably predicts eyewitness identification accuracy. American Psychologist, 70, 515–526.
16.
WixtedJ. T.WellsG. L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: A new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18, 10–65.
17.
YatesS. Q. (2017, January6). Memorandum for heads of department law enforcement components, all department prosecutors. Washington, DC: Office of the Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice.