The effectiveness of judicial instructions on eyewitness evidence in sensitizing jurors to suggestive identification procedures captured on video
One of the legal safeguards designed to educate jurors about eyewitness evidence is judicial instructions. However, their effectiveness in sensitizing jurors to eyewitness accuracy and suggestive identification procedures captured on video is unknown.
Participants (N = 232) watched the video-recorded identification and testimony of one of 16 genuine eyewitnesses. We varied the suggestiveness of the identification procedure, whether they saw an accurate or inaccurate identification, and whether or not they received Victorian judicial instructions about eyewitness evidence.
Participants were sensitive to eyewitness accuracy when identification procedures were non-suggestive, with participants more likely to believe accurate eyewitnesses than inaccurate eyewitnesses. This sensitivity to identification accuracy was impaired when participants saw an identification made under suggestive circumstances. Judicial instructions did not significantly affect participants’ judgments with one exception: when they led to confusion. Participants who saw an identification obtained under suggestive circumstances were more willing to believe the eyewitness when they read the judicial instructions compared to those in the control condition.
Suggestive identification procedures impaired participants’ sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy. The Victorian judicial instructions did not improve participants’ sensitivity. This is the first test of judicial instructions that used Bayesian analyses to establish the absence of an effect. Thus, judicial instructions might not improve sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy or be an effective remedy for the damaging effects of suggestive identification procedures.
KeywordsEyewitness evidence Judicial instructions Juror decision-making Jury instructions Video-recorded identification procedure
This work was partially supported by the Swinburne University of Technology Postgraduate Research Award. The authors would like to thank Bonnie Kirkman, Jamie Smith-Morvell, Meg Blackie, Molly McQueen, Olivia Bradfield, Roy Groncki, and Travis Edmonds for their thorough reviews and comments on the early version of this manuscript.
- Austin, J. L., Zimmerman, D. M., Rhead, L., & Kovera, M. B. (2013). Double-blind lineup administration. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Reform of eyewitness identification procedures (pp. 139–160). Washington, DC: The American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Beaudry, J. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., Leach, A.-M., Mansour, J. K., Bertrand, M. I., & Kalmet, N. (2015). The effect of evidence type, identification accuracy, line-up presentation, and line-up administration on mock-jurors’ perceptions of eyewitnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20, 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12030.Google Scholar
- Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: myth, controversy, and reform. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Boyce, M. A., Beaudry, J. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). Belief of eyewitness evidence. In R. Lindsay, D. Ross, J. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (pp. 25–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2007). A role for theory in eyewitness identification research. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology (Memory for people) (Vol. 2, pp. 201–218). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
- Chaiken, S. (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5),752–766Google Scholar
- Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197–1207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00400.x.Google Scholar
- Davies v. The Queen VSCA 66 (2019).Google Scholar
- DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: theory and applications (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.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, 1042–1054. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1042.Google Scholar
- Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: the state of the science. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
- Douglass, A. B., & Jones, E. E. (2013). Confidence inflation in eyewitnesses: Seeing is not believing. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(1), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02031.
- Geiselman, R., & Mendez, B. A. (2005). Assistance to the fact finder: eyewitness expert testimony versus attorneys’ closing arguments. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(2), 5–14.Google Scholar
- Giner-Sorolla, R. (2018). Powering Your Interaction [Blog]. Retrieved from https://approachingblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/powering-your-interaction-2/.
- Greene, E. (1988). Judge's instruction on eyewitness testimony: evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x.Google Scholar
- Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 2–9.Google Scholar
- JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.9)[Computer software]. Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org/.
- Jones, A. M., & Penrod, S. (2018). Improving the effectiveness of the Henderson instruction safeguard against unreliable eyewitness identification. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24, 177–193.Google Scholar
- Jones, A. M., Bergold, A. N., Dillon, M. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of Henderson instructions and expert testimony: Which safeguard improves jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13, 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9279-6.Google Scholar
- Judicial College of Victoria (2015). Section 4.13.1— Charge: identification evidence. Victorian criminal charge book. Retrieved from http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CCB/index.htm#28083.htm
- Judicial Commission of NSW. (2006). Criminal trial courts bench book. Retrieved 24 June 2018, from https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/identification_evidence-visual_forms.html
- Kaminski, K. S., & Sporer, S. L. (2018). Observer judgments of identification accuracy are affected by non‐valid cues: A Brunswikian lens model analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2293.
- Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: a practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303–313.Google Scholar
- Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Bertrand, M. I., Kalmet, N., Melsom, E. I, & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2012). Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093937.
- McGuire, W. J. (1972). Attitude change: the information-processing paradigm. In C. G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 108–141). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
- New Jersey v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (2011).Google Scholar
- Ogloff, J. R. P., & Rose, V. G. (2005). The comprehension of judicial instructions. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: an empirical perspective (pp. 407–444). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Papailiou, A. P., Yokum, D. V., & Robertson, C. T. (2015). The novel New Jersey eyewitness instruction induces skepticism but not sensitivity. PloS one, 10(12), 1–16.Google Scholar
- Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.Google Scholar
- Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. E. (1996). Judges’ cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14, 31–66.Google Scholar
- Riva, G., Teruzzi, T., & Anolli, L. (2003). The use of the internet in psychological research: comparison of online and offline questionnaires. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 6, 73–80.Google Scholar
- Rose, V.G. & Ogloff, J.R.P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010659703309.
- Safer, M. A., Murphy, R. P., Wise, R. A., Bussey, L., Millett, C., & Holfeld, B. (2016). Educating jurors about eyewitness testimony in criminal cases with circumstantial and forensic evidence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.041.Google Scholar
- Shaw, J. S., III, Garcia, L. A., & McClure, K. A. (1999). A lay perspective on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01374.x.Google Scholar
- Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 1–18.Google Scholar
- Stefan, A. M., Gronau, Q. F., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2019). A tutorial on Bayes factor design analysis using an informed prior. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 1042–1058.Google Scholar
- Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (1997). How effective is the motion-to-suppress safeguard? Judges’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 211–220.Google Scholar
- Tenney, E. R., MacCoun, R. J., Spellman, B. A., & Hastie, R. (2007). Calibration trumps confidence as a basis for witness credibility. Psychological Science, 18, 46–50.Google Scholar
- The Innocence Project. (2019). Eyewitness misidentification. Retrieved from www.innocenceproject.org
- United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
- Wagenmakers, E. J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., Selker, R., Gronau, Q. F., Smira, M., Epskamp, S., Matzke, D., Rouder, J. N., & Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 35–57.Google Scholar
- Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.360.
- Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.Google Scholar
- Wilford, M. M., & Wells, G. L. (2013). Eyewitness system variables. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Reform of eyewitness identification procedures (pp. 23–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar