<i>Henderson</i>Instructions: Do They Enhance Evidence Evaluation?

Dillon, Marlee Kind; Jones, Angela; Bergold, Amanda N.; Hui, Cora Y.T.; Penrod, Steven D.

doi:10.1080/15228932.2017.1235964

Cited by 28 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, the evidentiary instruction triggered scepticism instead of increased sensitivity. Dillon et al (2017) reported similar findings when conducting a study in which 468 participants watched a trial simulation in which the strength of eyewitness evidence was manipulated. The participants either received a Henderson instruction prior to the eyewitness testimony, at the end of the trial, or not at all.…”

Section: Jury Researchmentioning

confidence: 62%

Evidentiary instructions improve mock juror assessment of feature-comparison evidence

Ribbers

Henneberg

2018

The International Journal of Evidence & Proof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feature-comparison evidence has been introduced in court without sufficient scientific validation and has been at the heart of numerous miscarriages of justice. Juror assessment of such evidence and the efficacy of evidentiary instructions were examined through a mock jury experiment with case reports featuring either central or peripheral feature-comparison evidence. In a case-control design (N = 174), the test group was exposed to an evidentiary instruction about the ear print evidence presented in the first case report (adapted from R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903) whereas the control group did not receive such an instruction. The provision of this instruction resulted in a significant decrease in verdict severity with a large effect size. For the second case report (based on R v George (Barry) [2007] EWCA Crim 2722), all subjects were asked to return verdicts based on circumstantial evidence, gunpowder residue evidence, and an evidentiary instruction about that gunpowder residue evidence. Verdict severity increased significantly after the provision of gunpowder residue evidence, followed by a subsequent reduction in verdict severity after the introduction of an evidentiary instruction. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in verdict severity between the test and control group, suggesting that the test group exhibited a scepticism effect brought about by the initial evidentiary instruction about ear print evidence. This study demonstrates that although mock jurors consider feature-comparison evidence a convincing indicator of guilt, the provision of an evidentiary instruction has the potential to educate jurors about the limitations of such evidence.

show abstract

Section: Jury Researchmentioning

confidence: 62%

Evidentiary instructions improve mock juror assessment of feature-comparison evidence

Ribbers

Henneberg

2018

The International Journal of Evidence & Proof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, attempts to improve US judicial instructions by incorporating psychological research-the Henderson instructions-have not fared better than their predecessor. The Henderson instructions either led to skepticism (Papailiou et al 2015;Dillon et al 2017) or had a null effect on jurors' verdict (Jones et al 2017), although a revised version did increase sensitivity to witnessing conditions (Jones and Penrod 2018). In the only test of jurors' sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy, Martire and Kemp (2009) found that the New South Wales judicial instructions (Judicial Commission of NSW 2006) had a null effect on jurors' judgments.…”

Section: Judicial Instructions In Eyewitness Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of judicial instructions on eyewitness evidence in sensitizing jurors to suggestive identification procedures captured on video

Skalon

Beaudry

2019

J Exp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the one hand, preliminary research is promising: Olson and Wells () found participants who generated an alibi of their own before evaluating someone else's rated the other alibi as more credible than participants who evaluated that alibi first. On the other hand, instructions that inform jurors about the issues with eyewitness identification (see New Jersey vs. Henderson , ) may not be as effective as intended (Dillon, Jones, Bergold, Hui, & Penrod, unpublished). Indeed, Allison and Brimacombe () found that judicial instructions about contextual variables (such as prior convictions) affecting alibi evaluation had no effect on guilt ratings, although, notably, those instructions did not explain the memory issues we have discussed here.…”

Section: Conclusion Possible Solutions and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory Errors in Alibi Generation: How an Alibi Can Turn Against Us

Crozier

Strange

Loftus

2017

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alibis play a critical role in the criminal justice system. Yet research on the process of alibi generation and evaluation is still nascent. Indeed, similar to other widely investigated psychological phenomena in the legal system - such as false confessions, historical claims of abuse, and eyewitness memory - the basic assumptions underlying alibi generation and evaluation require closer empirical scrutiny. To date, the majority of alibi research investigates the social psychological aspects of the process. We argue that applying our understanding of basic human memory is critical to a complete understanding of the alibi process. Specifically, we challenge the use of alibi inconsistency as an indication of guilt by outlining the "cascading effects" that can put innocents at risk for conviction. We discuss how normal encoding and storage processes can pose problems at retrieval, particularly for innocent suspects that can result in alibi inconsistencies over time. Those inconsistencies are typically misunderstood as intentional deception, first by law enforcement, affecting the investigation, then by prosecutors affecting prosecution decisions, and finally by juries, ultimately affecting guilt judgments. Put differently, despite the universal nature of memory inconsistencies, a single error can produce a cascading effect, rendering an innocent individual's alibi, ironically, proof of guilt. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

HendersonInstructions: Do They Enhance Evidence Evaluation?

Cited by 28 publications

References 30 publications

Evidentiary instructions improve mock juror assessment of feature-comparison evidence

Evidentiary instructions improve mock juror assessment of feature-comparison evidence

The effectiveness of judicial instructions on eyewitness evidence in sensitizing jurors to suggestive identification procedures captured on video

Memory Errors in Alibi Generation: How an Alibi Can Turn Against Us

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About