Perceptions and Credibility: Understanding the Nuances of Eyewitness Testimony

Abstract

Of the first 225 exonerations of wrongfully convicted individuals in the United States by the Innocence Project, 77% were based on mistaken eyewitness identifications. Given the mounting evidence on reliability issues surrounding eyewitness testimony, coupled with the fact that forensic evidence is neither infallible nor always available, it becomes important to better understand how jurors use these different types of evidence in their decision making. The current research seeks to fill a void in the literature by evaluating the influence of eyewitness testimony on case outcomes while accounting for other types of evidence (e.g., DNA). Although the results underscore the value of forensic DNA evidence, they also highlight the importance of eyewitness testimony in juror decision making. In fact, both pretrial perceptions of the reliability of eyewitness evidence and the credibility of an eyewitness during trial significantly impact the desired verdict for jurors above and beyond other types of evidence. Implications for case processing and avenues for future research are discussed.

A blind man’s bluff: choice blindness in eyewitness testimony

“…Fourthly, only a short retention interval was inserted between the event and the identification task. In real cases, intervals would generally be longer (Horry et al, 2012;Shermer et al, 2011). Yet, a longer interval would cause the memory trace to fade, producing more ambiguity and probably higher rates of blindness (e.g., .…”

“…Importantly, the present work speaks to the risk of long delays between police investigation and court trials. Considering that even under the speedy trial act as applied in the US judicial system, trials begin the earliest 90-120 days after the arrest of the suspect (Shermer et al, 2011), the increasing acceptance of manipulations with longer delays is worrying. The current findings suggest that by the time witnesses would be crossexamined in court, a large proportion of witnesses would fail to realise that their statement contains mistakes.…”

“…However, it is unlikely that the identification procedure and the confrontation with one's decision at trial take place at the same day. In fact, even in so-called "speedy trial acts" as applied by the U.S. judicial system, trials usually begin at least 90 to 120 days after the arrest of the suspect (Shermer et al, 2011). Therefore, we wondered what the extent of blindness would be for recognition decisions that were taken in the recent past.…”

“…Apart from the inability of witnesses to detect alterations in their testimony, the present work also speaks to the issue of extended delays between the police investigation and the time until cases reach the courts. Even under the speedy trial act as applied in the US judicial system trials begin the earliest 90-120 days after the arrest of the suspect (Shermer et al, 2011). This is worrying considering the increasing blindness rates with longer delays (Chapters 3 & 7).…”

“…Finally, in a fifth study (Experiment 3), we examined whether increased retention intervals between the recognition decision and the presentation of the manipulated outcome would affect blindness rates. We considered this important as it is unlikely that the identification procedure and the confrontation with one's decision at trial take place at the same day (Shermer, Rose, & Hoffman, 2011). Thus, Experiment 3 employed a procedure similar to Experiment 2a with the exception that the manipulated outcome was presented 48 hrs after the recognition task, which is a delay that adds to the ecological relevance of the study.…”