Evidence in Court: Witness Preparation and Cross‐Examination Style Effects on Adult Witness Accuracy

Abstract

Witnesses play a clear and pivotal role in the criminal justice system and there is an obvious public interest in identifying procedures that both undermine and maximize the quality of evidence received by the criminal courts. This paper reports an investigation into the effects of witness familiarization and cross-examination type on adult witness accuracy that situates outcomes in both legal and psychological context. 60 mock witnesses observed a crime event and each witness was then cross-examined by a practising barrister in a moot courtroom according to two conditions - either via a scripted complex version of cross-examination or by a simpler but equivalent scripted examination. Mock witnesses were also allocated to two further conditions - half the participants received a guidance booklet on cross-examination and the other half received no familiarization to the process. Study outcomes showed that familiarization of witnesses to cross-examination processes increased accurate responses and reduced errors. The guidance seemingly allowed accessibility to cognitive information that enabled witnesses to process information more effectively. On this basis, advance written information about the nature of the cross-examination and potentially misleading tactics used by advocates could help to immunize against negative lawyerly influence.

Impact of Evidence Type and Judicial Warning on Juror Perceptions of Global and Specific Witness Evidence

“…For example, jurors could heuristically rate the witness as less satisfactory due to the demands inherent within the task. In the complex context of the courtroom, mental shortcuts, which can often help to streamline information in daily activities, can be detrimental and lead to less effective outcomes (Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012). Notwithstanding the replication of this finding, it has practical implications for the legal system.…”

“…Cognitiveload theory states that constraints on working memory and information-processing systems mean that humans have limited cognitive resources for performing tasks (Baddeley, 2003;Sweller, 1988). Such a theory accounts for when carrying out complex tasks or multiple tasks this can diminish performance given limited cognitive resources (Pashler, 1994;Wagstaff et al, 2007;Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012). Furthermore, some researchers have proposed that individuals can be so limited at thinking and making inferences that mental shortcuts are often taken; that is they are miserly in their thinking (Fiske, 1995).…”

“…Moreover, a neuropsychological-cognitive model proposed by Wagstaff et al (2007) suggests that technically difficult tasks might be facilitated more readily if unnecessary cognitive burdens can be reduced. Thus, Wagstaff et al's model helps to consider cognitive load relative to task difficulty in this multifaceted domain, both tasks that are more and less complex (Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012).…”

Directive Leading Questions and Preparation Technique Effects on Witness Accuracy

“…Leading questions are those that are phrased in such a way as to suggest or imply the answer that is being sought and are deliberately framed to elicit a simple confirmation or denial (i.e., a yes/no response) in the hope that the witness will adopt the cross-examiner's formations as their own (Harris, 1984;Kebbell & Johnson, 2000). Research conducted has reliably demonstrated how leading questions can significantly reduce the accuracy of testimony (e.g., Andrews et al, 2015;Fogliati & Bussey, 2014;Hanna et al, 2012;Jack & Zajac, 2014;Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012). Other researchers have identified how more directive leading (Wheatcroft & Woods, 2010) questioning styles can be particularly detrimental to witness accuracy compared to their non-directive leading equivalents 899053S GOXXX10.1177/2158244019899053SAGE OpenGous and Wheatcroft research-article20202020…”

The Assessment of Expert Evidence on DNA in Malaysia

“…When a case proceeds with a trial, witnesses may be called to testify in court (Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012). Witnesses may be called by the Public Prosecutor to prove its case against the accused.…”