An Examination of Mock Jurors’ Judgments in Familiar Identification Cases

  • Jonathan P. Vallano
  • Jennifer Pettalia
  • Emily Pica
  • Joanna Pozzulo
Article

Abstract

The present studies examined jurors’ perceptions of “familiar” identifications—that is, identifications where an eyewitness espouses prior exposure to the perpetrator. In two studies, undergraduate mock jurors (total N = 760) read a criminal case vignette that manipulated whether the eyewitness claimed to have prior exposure to the perpetrator (and how much). Study 1 additionally manipulated the eyewitness’ subsequent lineup identification confidence level, finding that confidence (but not familiarity) increased participants’ beliefs in guilt and identification accuracy. Study 2 employed a stronger familiarity manipulation while additionally manipulating how long before the crime the prior exposure occurred and the viewing conditions during the crime. Results indicated that this stronger familiar identification was perceived as more accurate and indicative of guilt than the stranger identification, but only in cases of minimal prior exposure. And while viewing conditions independently affected legal judgments, it rarely moderated these familiarity effects. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.

Keywords

Eyewitness identification Familiarity Juror decision-making Expert testimony 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Kristen Slapinski, Abigail Briggs, and Kelly Lawson for their assistance with this manuscript.

References

  1. Asai C (2001) The effect of familiarity on eyewitness identification testimony: the relationship between accuracy and confidence. Shinrigaku Kenkyu 72:283–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornstein BH (1999) The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out? Law Hum Behav 23:75–91.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022326807441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornstein BH, Deffenbacher KA, Penrod SD, McGorty EK (2012) Effects of exposure time and cognitive operations on facial identification accuracy: a meta-analysis of two variables associated with initial memory strength. Psychol Crime Law 18(5):473–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornstein BH, Golding JM, Neuschatz J, Kimbrough C, Reed K, Magyarics C, Luecht K (2017) Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: a meta-analysis. Law Hum Behav 41:13–28.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer N, Burke A (2002) Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law Hum Behav 26:44–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brief for the Appellant as amicus curiae, Connecticut v. Guilbert, S. C. 17948 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. Bruce V (2012) Familiar face recognition. In Wilkinson C, Ryan C (Eds), Craniofacial identification. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruce VJ, Henderson Z, Newman C, Burton AM (2001) Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. J Exp Psychol Appl 7:207–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman J, Zoeller E, Newman T, Vidmar N (2012) Don’t I know you? The effects of prior acquaintance/familiarity on witness identification. The Champion, www.nacdl.org
  10. Commonwealth v. Williams, 146 Conn (2015) App. 120Google Scholar
  11. Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Stuve TE (1988) Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law Hum Behav 12:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Dexter HR (1990) Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law Hum Behav 14:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deffenbacher KA, Bornstein BH, McGorty EK, Penrod SD (2008) Forgetting the once-seen face: estimating the strength of an eyewitness’s memory representation. J Exp Psychol Appl 14:139–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. DeJong M, Wagenaar WA, Wolters G, Verstijnen IM (2005) Familiar face recognition as a function of distance and illumination: a practical tool for use in the courtroom. Psychol Crime Law 11:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Devine DJ, Clayton LD, Dunford BB, Saying R, Pryce J (2001) Jury decision-making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychol Public Policy Law 7:622–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dillickrath T (2001) Expert testimony on eyewitness identification: admissibility and alternatives. Univ Miami Law Rev 55:1059–1100 Available at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol55/iss4/29 Google Scholar
  17. Ellison L, Munro VE (2010) Getting to (not) guilty: examining jurors’ deliberative processes in, and beyond, the context of a mock rape trial. Leg Stud 30:74–97.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2009.00141.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellison L, Munro VE (2014) A ‘special’ delivery? Exploring the impact of screens, live-links and video-recorded evidence on mock juror deliberation in rape trials. Soc Legal Stud 23:3–29.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663913496676 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses (2011)Google Scholar
  20. Flowe HD, Mehta A, Ebbesen EB (2011) The role of eyewitness identification evidence in felony case dispositions. Psychol Public Policy Law 17:140–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gobbini MI, Haxby JV (2007) Neural systems for recognition of familiar faces. Neuropsychologia 45:32–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Green DM, Swets JA (1966/1974) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing CoGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay DS (1990) Source monitoring. Psychol Bull 114:3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston RA, Edmonds AJ (2009) Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: a review. Memory 17:577–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kerstholt JH, Raaijmakers GW, Valeton JM (1992) The effect of expectation in the identification of known and unknown persons. Appl Cogn Psychol 6:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leippe MR, Eisenstadt D (2009) The influence of eyewitness expert testimony on jurors’ beliefs and judgments. In: Cutler BL (ed) Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 169–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindsay RCL, Wells GL, Rumpel CM (1981) Can people detect eyewitness-identification accuracy within and across situations? J Appl Psychol 66:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindsay RCL, Wells GL, O’Connor FJ (1984, 1989) Mock juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: a replication and extension. Law Hum Behav, 13, 333–339Google Scholar
  29. Loftus EF (1997) Creating false memories. Sci Am 277:70–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Loftus EF, Palmer JC (1974) Reconstruction of automobile destruction. An example of the interaction between language and memory. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 13:585–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loftus EF, Miller DG, Burns HJ (1978) Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 4:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lucas CA, Brewer N (2015) Eyewitness identification when the perpetrator “reminds me of someone I know.”. Psychiatry Psychol Law 22:49–59.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.918082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pezdek K, Roe C (1995) The effect of memory trace strength on suggestibility. J Exp Child Psychol 60:116–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pezdek K, Stolzenberg S (2014) Are individuals’ familiarity judgments diagnostic of prior contact? Psychol Crime Law 20:302–314.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.772181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pozzulo J, Pettalia JL, Bruer K, Javaid S (2014) Eyewitness age and familiarity with the defendant: influential factors in mock jurors’ assessment of guilt. Am J Forensic Psychol 32:39–51Google Scholar
  36. R v. Turnbull, 63 Cr App R 132 (1976)Google Scholar
  37. Schwaninger, A., Lobmaier, J. S., & Collishaw, S. M. (2002). Role of featural and configural information in familiar and unfamiliar face recognition. In Bülthoff H.H., Wallraven C., Lee S. W., & Poggio T.A. (Eds.) Biologically motivated computer vision. BMCV 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2525. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  38. Sheahan CL, Pozzulo JD, Reed JE, Pica E (2017) The role of familiarity with the defendant, type of descriptor discrepancy, and eyewitness age on mock jurors’ perceptions of eyewitness testimony. J Police Crim Psychol. Advanced Online Publication 33:35–44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9232-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. State of Kansas v. Trotter, 280 Kan. 800 (2006)Google Scholar
  40. State of New Jersey v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. State of Utah v. Bruce, 779 P.2d 646 (1989)Google Scholar
  42. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)Google Scholar
  43. Wells GL, Olson EA (2003) Eyewitness testimony. Annu Rev Psychol 54:277–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wells GL, Ferguson TH, Lindsay RCL (1981) The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. J Appl Psychol 66:688–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wise RA, Dauphinais KA, Safer MA (2007) A tripartite solution to eyewitness error. J Crim Law Crim 97:807–871 http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol97/iss3/4 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan P. Vallano
    • 1
  • Jennifer Pettalia
    • 2
  • Emily Pica
    • 2
  • Joanna Pozzulo
    • 2
  1. 1.Behavioral Sciences DivisionUniversity of Pittsburgh at GreensburgGreensburgUSA
  2. 2.Carleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations