The Impact of Eyewitness Expert Evidence and Judicial Instruction on Juror Ability to Evaluate Eyewitness Testimony
- 871 Downloads
It has been argued that psychologists should provide expert evidence to help jurors discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitness identifications. In this article we compare the effects of judicial instruction with expert evidence that is either congruent or incongruent with the ground truth, focusing on juror ability to evaluate “real” eyewitness evidence. In contrast to studies which have employed “fictional” eyewitness designs, we found no appreciable effect of either congruent or incongruent expert evidence on participant-juror sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy. We discuss the role of methodology on the inferences and conclusions that can be made regarding the impact of eyewitness expert evidence.
KeywordsEyewitness Judge Expert testimony Memory Decision-making
This research was supported by Discovery Grant DP0452699 from the Australian Research Council to the second author. We also thank Amanda Barnier, Nathan Weber and the following students for their contributions; Jade Hucker, Erin Littlewood, Alexa Muratore, Tamara Sweller and Shaina Terry.
- Blonstein, R., & Geiselman, E. (1990). Effects of witnessing conditions and expert witness testimony on credibility of an eyewitness. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8(4), 11–19.Google Scholar
- Brigham, J. C. (1988). Is witness confidence helpful in judging eyewitness accuracy? In M. M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R. N Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues, Vol. 1: Memory in everyday life (pp. 77–82). Oxford, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1042–1054.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Geiselman, R. E., Putman, C., Korte, R., Shahriary, M., Jachimowicz, G., & Irzhevsky, V. (2002). Eyewitness expert testimony and juror decisions. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 20(3), 21–36.Google Scholar
- Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States; 1989 through 2003. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95(2), 523–560.Google Scholar
- Hoffheimer, M. H. (1989). Effect of particularized instructions on evaluation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law & Psychology Review, 13, 43–58.Google Scholar
- Judicial Commission of NSW. (2006). Criminal trial courts bench book. Retrieved 21 March 2006, from http://www.jc.nsw.gov.au/ctcbb/main.html?.
- Krug, K. (2007). The relationship between confidence and accuracy: Current thoughts of the literature and a new area of research [Electronic Version]. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 3(1), 7–41.Google Scholar
- Lindsay, R. C. L. (1994). Expectations of eyewitness performance: Jurors’ verdicts do not follow from their beliefs. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 362–384). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Luus, C. A., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 714–723.Google Scholar
- Maass, A., Brigham, J. C., & West, S. G. (1987). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. In L. S. Wrightsman, C. E. Willis, & S. M. Kassin (Eds.), On the witness stand (pp. 240–262). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory a user’s guide (2nd ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar
- Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. (1999). Preventing mistaken convictions in eyewitness identification trials: The case against traditional safeguards. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 89–118). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Pezdek K. (2007). Expert testimony on eyewitness memory and identification. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (Chapter 4). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. (1996). Judges’ cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14(1), 31–66.Google Scholar
- Scheck, B., & Neufeld, P. (2006). The innocence project. Retrieved March 7, 2006, from http://www.innocenceproject.org.
- Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., Dwyer, J. (2001). Actual innocence (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Signet Printing.Google Scholar
- U .S. v Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar