Abstract
Previous research has compared the relative influence of DNA evidence and eyewitness testimony on mock jurors’ decisions, but always when presented by the same litigating party. The current study sought to test whether jurors would be more persuaded by DNA evidence than testimony from an eyewitness when these two forms of evidence were presented by opposite sides, and whether evidence strength would interact with type of evidence to affect verdict decisions and evidence ratings. Participants read a trial transcript in which either the Crown presented DNA strong/weak evidence while the Defence presented strong/weak eyewitness evidence, or vice-versa, then provided a verdict and evidence ratings. Results revealed that DNA evidence yielded more verdicts in favour of the party presenting it, but that contrary to some earlier research, jurors were somewhat sensitive to the differences between strong and weak DNA evidence. Interestingly, the strength of eyewitness evidence affected participants only when it was presented by the Crown. Attitudes toward each type of evidence were unaffected by evidence strength or presenting party, suggesting that these attitudes are stable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bell BE, Loftus EF (1988) Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. J Appl Soc Psychol 18(14):1171–1192. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01200.x
Benton TR, Ross DF, Bradshaw E, Thomas WN, Bradshaw GS (2006) Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Appl Cogn Psychol 20(1):115–129. doi:10.1002/acp.1171
Berman GL, Cutler BL (1996) Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. J Appl Psychol 81(2):170–177. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170
Berman GL, Narby DJ, Cutler BL (1995) Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors’ evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law Hum Behav 19(1):79–88. doi:10.1007/BF01499074
Bray R, Kerr NL (1982) Methodological issues in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In: Kerr NL, Bray R (eds) The psychology of the courtroom. Academic Press, New York, pp 287–323
Brewer N, Burke A (2002) Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law Hum Behav 26(3):353–364. doi:10.1023/A:1015380522722
Brewer N, Potter R, Fisher RP, Bond N, Luszcz MA (1999) Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Appl Cogn Psychol 13(4):297–313. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4<297::AID-CP578>3.0.CO;2-S
Burch AM, Durose MR, Walsh KA (2012) Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2009. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington
Clancy D, Bull R (2015) The effect on mock-juror decision-making of power-of- speech within eyewitness testimony and types of scientific evidence. Psychiatry Psychol Law 22(3):425–435. doi:10.1080/13218719.2014.960029
Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Stuve TE (1988) Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law Hum Behav 12(1):41–55. doi:10.1007/BF01064273
Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Dexter HR (1990) Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law Hum Behav 14(2):185–191. doi:10.1007/BF01062972
Devine DJ, Caughlin DE (2014) Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychol Public Policy Law 20(2):109–134. doi:10.1037/law0000006
Dror IE, Charlton D, Péron AE (2006) Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int 156(1):74–78. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017
Durose MR, Walsh KA, Burch AM (2008) Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2005. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington
Evans JR, Schreiber Compo N (2010) Mock jurors’ perceptions of identifications made by intoxicated eyewitnesses. Psychol Crime Law 16(3):191–210. doi:10.1080/10683160802612890
Golding JM, Stewart TL, Yozwiak JA, Djadali Y, Sanchez RP (2000) The impact of DNA evidence in a child sexual assault trial. Child Maltreat 5(4):373–383. doi:10.1177/1077559500005004009
Hans VP, Kaye DH, Dann BM, Farley EJ, Albertson S (2011) Science in the jury box: jurors’ comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence. Law Hum Behav 35(1):60–71. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9222-8
Innocence Project (2015). Retrieved May 12, 2015, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes-wrongful-conviction
Kalven H, Zeisel H (1966) The American jury and the death penalty. Univ Chicago Law Rev 769–781. doi:10.2307/1598508
Koehler JJ (2001) The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: how to make DNA match statistics seem impressive or insufficient. South Calif Law Rev 74:1275–1305
Koehler JJ (2011) If the shoe fits they might acquit: the value of forensic science testimony. J Empir Leg Stud 8(s1):21–48. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01225.x
Levett LM, Kovera MB (2008) The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence. Law Hum Behav 32(4):363–374. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9113-9
Levett LM, Kovera MB (2009) Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. Psychol Public Policy Law 15(2):124–148. doi:10.1037/a0016309
Lieberman JD, Carrell CA, Miethe TD, Krauss DA (2008) Gold versus platinum: do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychol Public Policy Law 14(1):27–62. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27
Lindsay RC, Wells GL, Rumpel CM (1981) Can people detect eyewitness- identification accuracy within and across situations? J Appl Psychol 66(1):79–89. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.66.1.79
London K, Nunez N (2000) The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. J Appl Psychol 85(6):932–939. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.932
Magnussen S, Melinder A, Stridbeck U, Raja AQ (2010) Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: a comparison of judges, jurors and the general public. Appl Cogn Psychol 24(1):122–133. doi:10.1002/acp.1550
McQuiston-Surrett D, Saks MJ (2009) The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law Hum Behav 33(5):436–453. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1
Narby DJ, Cutler BL (1994) Effectiveness of voir dire as a safeguard in eyewitness cases. J Appl Psychol 79(5):724–729. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.724
Odinot G, Wolters G, van Giezen A (2013) Accuracy, confidence and consistency in repeated recall of events. Psychol Crime Law 19(7):629–642. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2012.660152
Perfect TJ (2004) The role of self‐rated ability in the accuracy of confidence judgements in eyewitness memory and general knowledge. Appl Cogn Psychol 18(2):157–168. doi:10.1002/acp.952
Pezdek K, Avila-Mora E, Sperry K (2010) Does trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony. Appl Cogn Psychol 24(5):673–690. doi:10.1002/acp.1578
Pozzulo JD, Lemieux JM, Wilson A, Crescini C, Girardi A (2009) The influence of identification decision and DNA evidence on juror decision making. J Appl Soc Psychol 39(9):2069–2088. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00516.x
Schklar J, Diamond SS (1999) Juror reactions to DNA evidence: errors and expectancies. Law Hum Behav 23(2):159–184. doi:10.1023/A:1022368801333
Sears DO (1986) College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(3):515–530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
Skolnick P, Shaw JI (2001) A comparison of eyewitness and physical evidence on mock-juror decision making. Crim Justice Behav 28(5):614–630. doi:10.1177/009385480102800504
Stephens SL (2006) The CSI effect on real crime labs. N Engl Law Rev 41:591–608
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maeder, E.M., Ewanation, L.A. & Monnink, J. Jurors’ Perceptions of Evidence: The Relative Influence of DNA and Eyewitness Testimony when Presented by Opposing Parties. J Police Crim Psych 32, 33–42 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016-9194-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016-9194-9