The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony

Abstract

Cross-examination permits styles of questioning that increase eyewitness error (e.g. leading questions). Previous research has shown that under cross-examination children change many of their initially accurate answers. An experiment is reported in which the effect of cross-examination on accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony was investigated. Twenty-two student witnesses watched a video of a staged theft, either in pairs, or individually. Paired witnesses discussed the video with their cowitnesses, but did not know they had seen slightly different versions. Participants in the co-witness condition demonstrated memory conformity and recalled less accurately than witnesses in the control condition. After approximately 4 weeks all participants were cross-examined by a trainee barrister. Following cross-examination there was no difference in accuracy between the two experimental groups. Witnesses in both conditions made many changes to their previous reports by altering both initially correct and incorrect answers. The results demonstrate negative effects of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony.

Cross-Examination Fails to Safeguard Against Feedback Effects on Eyewitness Testimony

“…Even though the cross-examination led most eyewitnesses who received feedback to acknowledge that their recollections may have been influenced by the feedback, evaluators' belief of the eyewitnesses held steadfast. This finding reinforces a concern that has long been expressed by eyewitness scientists: Cross-examination is an insufficient safeguard against wrongful conviction based on mistaken eyewitness identification (Devenport et al, 2002;Epstein, 2007;Valentine & Maras, 2011;.…”

Cross-Examination Fails to Safeguard Against Feedback Effects on Eyewitness Testimony

“…Even though the cross-examination led most eyewitnesses who received feedback to acknowledge that their recollections may have been influenced by the feedback, evaluators' belief of the eyewitnesses held steadfast. This finding reinforces a concern that has long been expressed by eyewitness scientists: Cross-examination is an insufficient safeguard against wrongful conviction based on mistaken eyewitness identification (Devenport et al, 2002;Epstein, 2007;Valentine & Maras, 2011;.…”

The Selective Shield of Due Process: Analysis of the U.S. Department of Education's 2020 Title IX Regulations on Live Cross‐Examination

“…Observing a victim's demeanor during cross-examination to predict their truthfulness will be "about as accurat[e] as a coin flip" (Bennett, 2014, p. 2). Research consistently finds that adversarial cross-F o r R e v i e w O n l y examination, especially in cases that involve traumatic events, does not illicit a more truthful, accurate account of the event (Chan et al, 2017;Segovia et al, 2017;Valentine & Maras, 2011).…”

“…The style of questioning used during cross-examination can also affect the accuracy of witness answers, for instance, leading questions decreases the accuracy of memory recall (Valentine & Maras, 2011;Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012;Zajac & Cannan, 2009). Leading and closed questions are frequently used to question complainants during cross-examination, with defense lawyers (or in this case, advisors) seeking to control evidence and convey a plausible alternative story rather than uncover a complete and accurate account of the incident of sexual misconduct (Ellison, 2000;Kebbell et al, 2003;Smith & Skinner, 2012Zajac & Cannan, 2009).…”

“…However, evidence indicates that cross‐examination does not serve a significant “truth‐seeking function.” Observing a victim's demeanor during cross‐examination to predict their truthfulness will be “about as accurat[e] as a coin flip” (Bennett, 2014, p. 2). Research consistently finds that adversarial cross‐examination, especially in cases that involve traumatic events, does not illicit a more truthful, accurate account of the event (Chan, Manley, & Lang, 2017; Segovia, Strange, & Takarangi, 2017; Valentine & Maras, 2011). The style of questioning used during cross‐examination can also affect the accuracy of witness answers; for instance, leading questions decrease the accuracy of memory recall (Valentine & Maras, 2011; Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012; Zajac & Cannan, 2009).…”

“…Research consistently finds that adversarial cross‐examination, especially in cases that involve traumatic events, does not illicit a more truthful, accurate account of the event (Chan, Manley, & Lang, 2017; Segovia, Strange, & Takarangi, 2017; Valentine & Maras, 2011). The style of questioning used during cross‐examination can also affect the accuracy of witness answers; for instance, leading questions decrease the accuracy of memory recall (Valentine & Maras, 2011; Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012; Zajac & Cannan, 2009). Leading and closed questions are frequently used to question complainants during cross‐examination, with defense lawyers (or in this case, advisors) seeking to control evidence and convey a plausible alternative story rather than uncover a complete and accurate account of the incident of sexual misconduct (Ellison, 2000; Kebbell, Deprez, & Wagstaff, 2003; Smith & Skinner, 2012, 2017; Zajac & Cannan, 2009).…”

Cross-Examination Fails to Safeguard Against Feedback Effects on Eyewitness Testimony

“…Even though the cross-examination led most eyewitnesses who received feedback to acknowledge that their recollections may have been influenced by the feedback, evaluators' belief of the eyewitnesses held steadfast. This finding reinforces a concern that has long been expressed by eyewitness scientists: Cross-examination is an insufficient safeguard against wrongful conviction based on mistaken eyewitness identification (Devenport et al, 2002;Epstein, 2007;Valentine & Maras, 2011;.…”

The Selective Shield of Due Process: Analysis of the U.S. Department of Education's 2020 Title IX Regulations on Live Cross‐Examination

“…Observing a victim's demeanor during cross-examination to predict their truthfulness will be "about as accurat[e] as a coin flip" (Bennett, 2014, p. 2). Research consistently finds that adversarial cross-F o r R e v i e w O n l y examination, especially in cases that involve traumatic events, does not illicit a more truthful, accurate account of the event (Chan et al, 2017;Segovia et al, 2017;Valentine & Maras, 2011).…”

“…The style of questioning used during cross-examination can also affect the accuracy of witness answers, for instance, leading questions decreases the accuracy of memory recall (Valentine & Maras, 2011;Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012;Zajac & Cannan, 2009). Leading and closed questions are frequently used to question complainants during cross-examination, with defense lawyers (or in this case, advisors) seeking to control evidence and convey a plausible alternative story rather than uncover a complete and accurate account of the incident of sexual misconduct (Ellison, 2000;Kebbell et al, 2003;Smith & Skinner, 2012Zajac & Cannan, 2009).…”

“…However, evidence indicates that cross‐examination does not serve a significant “truth‐seeking function.” Observing a victim's demeanor during cross‐examination to predict their truthfulness will be “about as accurat[e] as a coin flip” (Bennett, 2014, p. 2). Research consistently finds that adversarial cross‐examination, especially in cases that involve traumatic events, does not illicit a more truthful, accurate account of the event (Chan, Manley, & Lang, 2017; Segovia, Strange, & Takarangi, 2017; Valentine & Maras, 2011). The style of questioning used during cross‐examination can also affect the accuracy of witness answers; for instance, leading questions decrease the accuracy of memory recall (Valentine & Maras, 2011; Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012; Zajac & Cannan, 2009).…”

“…Research consistently finds that adversarial cross‐examination, especially in cases that involve traumatic events, does not illicit a more truthful, accurate account of the event (Chan, Manley, & Lang, 2017; Segovia, Strange, & Takarangi, 2017; Valentine & Maras, 2011). The style of questioning used during cross‐examination can also affect the accuracy of witness answers; for instance, leading questions decrease the accuracy of memory recall (Valentine & Maras, 2011; Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012; Zajac & Cannan, 2009). Leading and closed questions are frequently used to question complainants during cross‐examination, with defense lawyers (or in this case, advisors) seeking to control evidence and convey a plausible alternative story rather than uncover a complete and accurate account of the incident of sexual misconduct (Ellison, 2000; Kebbell, Deprez, & Wagstaff, 2003; Smith & Skinner, 2012, 2017; Zajac & Cannan, 2009).…”

Cross-Examination Fails to Safeguard Against Feedback Effects on Eyewitness Testimony

“…Even though the cross-examination led most eyewitnesses who received feedback to acknowledge that their recollections may have been influenced by the feedback, evaluators' belief of the eyewitnesses held steadfast. This finding reinforces a concern that has long been expressed by eyewitness scientists: Cross-examination is an insufficient safeguard against wrongful conviction based on mistaken eyewitness identification (Devenport et al, 2002;Epstein, 2007;Valentine & Maras, 2011;.…”

The Selective Shield of Due Process: Analysis of the U.S. Department of Education's 2020 Title IX Regulations on Live Cross‐Examination

“…Observing a victim's demeanor during cross-examination to predict their truthfulness will be "about as accurat[e] as a coin flip" (Bennett, 2014, p. 2). Research consistently finds that adversarial cross-F o r R e v i e w O n l y examination, especially in cases that involve traumatic events, does not illicit a more truthful, accurate account of the event (Chan et al, 2017;Segovia et al, 2017;Valentine & Maras, 2011).…”

“…The style of questioning used during cross-examination can also affect the accuracy of witness answers, for instance, leading questions decreases the accuracy of memory recall (Valentine & Maras, 2011;Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012;Zajac & Cannan, 2009). Leading and closed questions are frequently used to question complainants during cross-examination, with defense lawyers (or in this case, advisors) seeking to control evidence and convey a plausible alternative story rather than uncover a complete and accurate account of the incident of sexual misconduct (Ellison, 2000;Kebbell et al, 2003;Smith & Skinner, 2012Zajac & Cannan, 2009).…”

“…However, evidence indicates that cross‐examination does not serve a significant “truth‐seeking function.” Observing a victim's demeanor during cross‐examination to predict their truthfulness will be “about as accurat[e] as a coin flip” (Bennett, 2014, p. 2). Research consistently finds that adversarial cross‐examination, especially in cases that involve traumatic events, does not illicit a more truthful, accurate account of the event (Chan, Manley, & Lang, 2017; Segovia, Strange, & Takarangi, 2017; Valentine & Maras, 2011). The style of questioning used during cross‐examination can also affect the accuracy of witness answers; for instance, leading questions decrease the accuracy of memory recall (Valentine & Maras, 2011; Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012; Zajac & Cannan, 2009).…”

“…Research consistently finds that adversarial cross‐examination, especially in cases that involve traumatic events, does not illicit a more truthful, accurate account of the event (Chan, Manley, & Lang, 2017; Segovia, Strange, & Takarangi, 2017; Valentine & Maras, 2011). The style of questioning used during cross‐examination can also affect the accuracy of witness answers; for instance, leading questions decrease the accuracy of memory recall (Valentine & Maras, 2011; Wheatcroft & Ellison, 2012; Zajac & Cannan, 2009). Leading and closed questions are frequently used to question complainants during cross‐examination, with defense lawyers (or in this case, advisors) seeking to control evidence and convey a plausible alternative story rather than uncover a complete and accurate account of the incident of sexual misconduct (Ellison, 2000; Kebbell, Deprez, & Wagstaff, 2003; Smith & Skinner, 2012, 2017; Zajac & Cannan, 2009).…”