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.

中文翻译：

---

目击者识别：实时，照片和视频节目单。

用于呈现阵容成员以进行目击者识别的媒体根据刑事调查的位置而异。尽管在某些辖区，现场直播节目表仍是默认程序，但在其他地区，这种做法已被照片或视频节目表所取代。这种分歧导致两种可能性：要么某些辖区未使用最有助于准确目击证人识别的阵容介质，要么阵容介质与目击者识别的准确性无关。照片和视频阵容是更实际的选择，但现场阵容的支持者认为，当阵容成员实际在场时，证人可以做出更好的身份识别决定。在这里，作者们反对这种优越的生活假设。为了在实践中表现出色，现场演示的好处必须足够大，以克服组织和管理现场阵容的固有困难。文献综述表明，即使在实验环境中，这些困难可以最小化，但尚不清楚直播阵容是否优越。作者得出的结论是，在实践中鲜活的阵容很少是最好的选择，并鼓励进行进一步的研究以确定哪种非鲜活的媒介在证明价值和实用价值之间达到最佳平衡。