The effects of mock jurors' beliefs about eyewitness performance on trial judgments

Abstract

Two experiments examined how mock jurors' beliefs about three factors known to influence eyewitness memory accuracy relate to decision making (age of eyewitness and presence of weapon in Study 1, length of eyewitness identification decision time in Study 2). Psychology undergraduates rendered verdicts and evaluated trial participants after reading a robberyÁmurder trial summary that varied eyewitness age (6, 11, 42, or 74 years) and weapon presence (visible or not) in Study 1 and eyewitness decision length (2Á3 or 30 s) in Study 2 (n 0 200 each). The interactions between participant belief about these variables and the manipulated variables themselves were the heart of this study. Participants' beliefs about eyewitness age and weapon presence interacted with these manipulations, but only for some judgments Á verdict for eyewitness age and eyewitness credibility for weapon focus. The exploratory meditational analyses found only one relation: juror belief about eyewitness age mediated the relation between eyewitness age and credibility ratings. These results highlight a need for juror education and specialized voir dire in cases where legitimate concerns exist regarding the reliability of eyewitness memory (e.g. child eyewitness, weapon presence during event, long eyewitness identification time). If erroneous juror beliefs can be corrected their impact may be reduced.

The Cross-Race Effect: Resistant to Instructions

“…When trials contain eyewitness testimony, jurors rely on it heavily, despite holding some erroneous beliefs about the factors that make eyewitnesses more or less accurate [1]. Because jurors rely on those beliefs in evaluating eyewitness credibility and making trial judgments [1][2][3], false convictions in eyewitness cases are not uncommon. Indeed, eyewitness misidentifications lead to more wrongful convictions than all other causes combined [4,5].…”

Memory development: implications for adults recalling childhood experiences in the courtroom

“…Jurors are similarly naïve when it comes to understanding whether children can remember events that happen only once, events that are traumatic, or which factors can affect the accuracy of memories across childhood (e.g., suggestibility, repeated questioning) 17 . Indeed, these naïve but 'common sense' beliefs directly impact the verdicts jurors render in court 18 (Box 2).…”

Decision‐making in civil litigation: Effects of attorney credibility, evidence strength, and juror cognitive processing

“…Research on the effects of source credibility in the courtroom often focuses on the credibility of victims (Bottoms, Davis, & Epstein, ), defendants (e.g., Bottoms et al, ), eyewitnesses (Neal, Christiansen, Bornstein, & Robicheaux, ), or expert witnesses (Cramer, Brodsky, & DeCoster, ), with little focus on credibility aspects of attorneys. When the credibility of the attorney is examined, it is often done in two ways—correlational analyses or experimental manipulation—though much of this research focuses on the constituents of credibility (expertise, trustworthiness) and seeks to assess at least expertise in objective ways.…”