Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 225–236

The Impact of Eyewitness Expert Evidence and Judicial Instruction on Juror Ability to Evaluate Eyewitness Testimony

Original Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10979-008-9134-z

Cite this article as:
Martire, K.A. & Kemp, R.I. Law Hum Behav (2009) 33: 225. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9134-z

Abstract

It has been argued that psychologists should provide expert evidence to help jurors discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitness identifications. In this article we compare the effects of judicial instruction with expert evidence that is either congruent or incongruent with the ground truth, focusing on juror ability to evaluate “real” eyewitness evidence. In contrast to studies which have employed “fictional” eyewitness designs, we found no appreciable effect of either congruent or incongruent expert evidence on participant-juror sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy. We discuss the role of methodology on the inferences and conclusions that can be made regarding the impact of eyewitness expert evidence.

Keywords

EyewitnessJudgeExpert testimonyMemoryDecision-making

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.National Drug and Alcohol Research CentreUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia