Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 225–236 | Cite as

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

Original Article

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

Eyewitness Judge Expert testimony Memory Decision-making 

References

  1. Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blonstein, R., & Geiselman, E. (1990). Effects of witnessing conditions and expert witness testimony on credibility of an eyewitness. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8(4), 11–19.Google Scholar
  3. Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradfield, A., & Wells, G. L. (2000). The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law and Human Behavior, 24(5), 581–594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 353–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(1), 11–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brigham, J. C. (1988). Is witness confidence helpful in judging eyewitness accuracy? In M. M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R. N Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues, Vol. 1: Memory in everyday life (pp. 77–82). Oxford, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7(2), 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(14, Pt 2), 1197–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13(3), 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutler, B., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devenport, J. L., & Cutler, B. L. (2004). Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28(5), 569–576.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1042–1054.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleet, M. L., Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). The confidence-accuracy relationship: The effects of confidence assessment and choosing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10(3), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geiselman, R. E., Putman, C., Korte, R., Shahriary, M., Jachimowicz, G., & Irzhevsky, V. (2002). Eyewitness expert testimony and juror decisions. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 20(3), 21–36.Google Scholar
  18. Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(3, Pt 1), 252–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Solving the eyewitness problem. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2(4), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States; 1989 through 2003. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95(2), 523–560.Google Scholar
  21. Hoffheimer, M. H. (1989). Effect of particularized instructions on evaluation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law & Psychology Review, 13, 43–58.Google Scholar
  22. Hosch, H. M., Beck, E. L., & McIntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Judicial Commission of NSW. (2006). Criminal trial courts bench book. Retrieved 21 March 2006, from http://www.jc.nsw.gov.au/ctcbb/main.html?.
  24. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44(8), 1089–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research. American Psychologist, 56(5), 405–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Katzev, R. D., & Wishart, S. S. (1985). The impact of judicial commentary concerning eyewitness identifications on jury decision making. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 76(3), 733–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krug, K. (2007). The relationship between confidence and accuracy: Current thoughts of the literature and a new area of research [Electronic Version]. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 3(1), 7–41.Google Scholar
  28. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(4), 909–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., Rauch, S. M., & Seib, H. M. (2004). Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors’ need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 524–541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1994). Expectations of eyewitness performance: Jurors’ verdicts do not follow from their beliefs. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 362–384). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lindsay, R., Wells, G. L., & O’Connor, F. (1989). Mock-Juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law and Human Behavior, 13(3), 333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 9–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luus, C. A., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 714–723.Google Scholar
  34. Maass, A., Brigham, J. C., & West, S. G. (1987). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. In L. S. Wrightsman, C. E. Willis, & S. M. Kassin (Eds.), On the witness stand (pp. 240–262). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory a user’s guide (2nd ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. (1999). Preventing mistaken convictions in eyewitness identification trials: The case against traditional safeguards. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 89–118). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Pezdek K. (2007). Expert testimony on eyewitness memory and identification. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (Chapter 4). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. (1996). Judges’ cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14(1), 31–66.Google Scholar
  39. Scheck, B., & Neufeld, P. (2006). The innocence project. Retrieved March 7, 2006, from http://www.innocenceproject.org.
  40. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., Dwyer, J. (2001). Actual innocence (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Signet Printing.Google Scholar
  41. Sporer, S., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. U .S. v Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
  43. Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2003). The effect of judgment type and confidence scale on confidence-accuracy calibration in face recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 490–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wells, G. L. (1986). Expert psychological testimony: Empirical and conceptual analyses of effects. Law and Human Behavior, 10(1–2), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 440–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C., & Tousignant, J. P. (1980). Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Personalised recommendations