Game Card, UM Football vs Wisconsin, 1905 (pictures of coaches and starting lineups)

(Original loaned to library for scanning)

Band alignment of InN/GaAs heterojunction determined by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy

The valence band offset (VBO) of the InN/GaAs heterojunction is directly determined by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy to be 0.94 +/- 0.23 eV. The conduction band offset is deduced from the known VBO value to be 1.66 +/- 0.23 eV, and a type-II band alignment forms at the InN/GaAs heterojunction. (C) 2008 American Institute of Physics.

The influence of the cross -race effect on lineup construction and fairness

Lineup procedures have recently garnered extensive empirical attention, in an effort to reduce the number of mistaken identifications that plague the criminal justice system. Relatively little attention, however, has been paid to the influence of the lineup constructor or the lineup construction technique on the quality of the lineup. This study examined whether the cross-race effect has an influence on the quality of lineups constructed using a match-to-suspect or match-to-description technique in a series of three phases. Participants generated descriptions of same- and other-race targets in Phase 1, which were used in Phase 2. In Phase 2, participants were asked to create lineups for own-race targets and other-race targets using one of two techniques. The lineups created in this phase were examined for lineup quality in Phase 3 by calculating lineup fairness assessments through the use of a mock witness paradigm. ^ Overall, the results of these experiment phases suggest that the race of those involved in the lineup construction process influences lineups. There was no difference in witness description accuracy in Phase 1, which ran counter to predictions based on the cross-race effect. The cross-race effect was observed, however, in Phases 2 and 3. The lineup construction technique used also influenced several of the process measures, selection estimates, and fairness judgments in Phase 2. Interestingly, the presence of the cross-race effect was in the opposite direction as predicted for some measures in both phases. In Phase 2, the cross-race effect was as predicted for number of foils viewed, but in the opposite direction for average time spent viewing each foil. In Phase 3, the cross-race effect was in the opposite direction than predicted, with higher levels of lineup fairness in other-race lineups. The practical implications of these findings are discussed in relation to lineup fairness within the legal system. ^

Eyewitness decision -making with showups: Probative or perilous?

Showups are a technique of eyewitness identification in which a single suspect is presented to a witness for identification. Showups are controversial. Defense attorneys argue that they are suggestive and place suspects at undue risk of false identification. Prosecutors and police officers argue that showups are an indispensable investigative tool and are no more suggestive than other identification techniques. Are showups probative or perilous? If so, what can be done to improve their accuracy? This investigation converged on this question by addressing three interrelated goals. The first was to examine the effect of two system variables, retention interval and suspect clothing, on showup accuracy. The second was to determine if showups are more suggestive than lineups. The third goal was to explore carryover effects from showups to subsequent lineup identifications. ^ Eyewitness performance was evaluated with the Eyewitness Identification Paradigm. Approximately 500 undergraduate students at FIU witnesses a staged event (i.e., a "crime") in their classrooms and subsequently participated in a showup and/or lineup identification test. Half of the identification tests contained the target (i.e., the "perpetrator") and half contained a target-substitute (i.e., an "innocent suspect"). ^ The results of this study indicated that, overall, showups are not unusually prejudicial and are no more suggestive than lineups. However this study identified two specific conditions under which showups are likely to lead to false identifications of an innocent suspect. First, false identification are likely to occur in showups that are conducted shortly after a crime when the suspect is wearing clothing similar to that worn by the perpetrator. Second, placing an innocent suspect in both a showup and then a lineup substantially increases the chances that the suspect will be falsely identified in the lineup. The implications of these findings for the conduct of eyewitness investigations are discussed. ^

LINEUP SIZE AND NUMBER OF CUES: WHEN BIGGER ISN’T BETTER

Larger lineups could protect innocent suspects from being misidentified; however, they can also decrease correct identifications. Bertrand (2006) investigated whether the decrease in correct identifications could be prevented by adding more cues, in the form of additional views of lineup members’ faces, to the lineup. Adding these cues was successful to an extent. The current series of studies attempted to replicate Bertrand’s (2006) findings while addressing some methodological issues—namely, the inconsistency in image size as lineup size increased. First, I investigated whether image size could affect face recognition (Chapter 2) and found it could, but that it also affected previously-seen (“old”) versus previously-unseen (“new”) faces differently. Specifically, smaller image sizes at exposure lowered accuracy for old faces, while these same image sizes at recognition lowered accuracy for new faces. Although these results indicate that target recognition would be unaffected by image size at recognition (i.e., during a lineup), lineups are also comprised of previously-unseen faces, in the form of fillers and innocent suspects. Because image size could affect lineup decisions, as it could become more difficult to realize fillers are previously-unseen, I decided to replicate Bertrand (2006) while keeping image size constant in Chapters 3 (simultaneous lineups) and 4 (simultaneous-presentation, sequential decisions). In both Chapters, the integral findings were the same: correct identification rates decreased as lineup size increased from 6- to 24-person lineups, but adding cues had no effect. The inability to replicate Bertrand (2006) could mean that the original finding was due to chance, but alternate explanations also exist, such as the overall size of the array, the degree to which additional cues overlap, and the length of the target exposure. These alternate explanations, along with directions for future research, are discussed in the following Chapters.