Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 29–52 | Cite as

Comparing the effectiveness of Henderson instructions and expert testimony: Which safeguard improves jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence?

  • Angela M. JonesEmail author
  • Amanda N. Bergold
  • Marlee Kind Dillon
  • Steven D. Penrod



The New Jersey Supreme Court recently determined that jurors may not be able to effectively evaluate eyewitness evidence on their own. As a result, the Court proposed the use of judicial instructions to assist jurors (called Henderson instructions) and suggested the implementation of these instructions would reduce the need for expert testimony. We tested the efficacy of these instructions compared to alternative instructions and expert testimony.


We utilized a mock trial paradigm, randomly assigning 452 participants to 1 of 20 videotaped trial conditions that varied the quality of eyewitness evidence (both witnessing and identification conditions) and the type of safeguard presented during the mock trial.


Jurors were sensitive to the quality of identification conditions on their own. Jurors were more likely to convict when identification conditions were good and less likely when identification conditions were poor. This relationship was mediated by eyewitness credibility ratings. Expert testimony resulted in skepticism by reducing the likelihood that jurors would convict regardless of the quality of witnessing and identification conditions. No variation of the instructions influenced verdicts.


While jurors were sensitive to the quality of identification conditions on their own, we observed no such effect for the quality of witnessing conditions, even with the aid of instructions and/or expert testimony. Both Henderson instructions and expert testimony may be insufficient for assisting jurors to effectively evaluate problematic witnessing conditions. Future research should examine the use of alternative safeguards.


Expert testimony Judicial instructions Juror decision making Eyewitness identification New Jersey Supreme Court 



This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation Law and Social Sciences Program (Award Number 12228487). The authors are grateful to The Innocence Project for providing us with trial materials and guidance.

Supplementary material

11292_2016_9279_MOESM1_ESM.docx (127 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 126 kb)


  1. Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, judges, and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115–129. doi: 10.1002/acp.1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berman, G. L., & Cutler, B. L. (1996). Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 170–177. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91. doi: 10.1023/A:1022326807441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornstein, B. H., & Hamm, J. A. (2012). Jury instructions on witness identification. Court Review, 48, 48–53.Google Scholar
  5. Bornstein, B. H., Deffenbacher, K. A., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2012). Effects of exposure time and cognitive operations on facial identification accuracy: a meta-analysis of two variables associated with initial memory strength. Psychology Crime and Law, 18, 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruer, K., & Pozzulo, J. D. (2014). Influence of eyewitness age and recall error on mock juror decision-making. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19, 332–348. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable - Psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306–1374. doi: 10.2307/1121842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Commonwealth v. Gomes, 470 Mass. 352 (2015).Google Scholar
  9. Cowan, S., Read, J. D., & Lindsay, D. S. (2014). Predicting and postdicting eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 21–30. doi: 10.1016/j/jarmac.2014.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41–55. doi: 10.1007/BF01064273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H., & Penrod, S. (1989a). Expert testimony and jury decision making: an empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215–225. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2370070206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. (1989b). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–332. doi: 10.1007/BF01067032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H., & Penrod, S. (1990a). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197–1207. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00400.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990b). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191. doi: 10.1007/BF01062972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B., McGorty, E. K., & Penrod, S. (2008). Forgetting the once-seen face: estimating the strength of an eyewitness’s memory representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 139–150. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.139.
  17. Desmarais, S., & Read, D. (2011). After 30 years, what do we know about what jurors know? A meta-analytic review of lay knowledge regarding eyewitness factors. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 200–210. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9232-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Devenport, J. L., & Cutler, B. L. (2004). Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 569–576. doi: 10.1023/B:LAHU.0000046434.39181.07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: evaluating commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 338–361. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, 1042–1054. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberation groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622–727. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224. doi: 10.2307/1191911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fawcett, J. M., Russell, E. J., Peace, K. A., & Christie, J. (2013). Of guns and geese: a meta-analytic review of the ‘weapon focus’ literature. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 35–66. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2011.599325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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, 215–228. doi: 10.1007/BF01046211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frank, J., & Applegate, B. K. (1998). Assessing juror understanding of capital-sentencing instructions. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 412–433. doi: 10.1177/0011128798044003005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instructions on eyewitness testimony: evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 151–276. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gregory v. City of Louisville. (2006). 444 F3d 725.Google Scholar
  28. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: a field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409–430. doi: 10.1007/BF01056412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoffheimer, M. H. (1989). Requiring jury instructions on eyewitness identification evidence at federal criminal trials. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 80, 585–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Houston, K. A., Hope, L., Memon, A., & Read, J. D. (2013). Expert testimony on eyewitness evidence: in search of common sense. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 31, 637–651. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. (1979). On the requirements of proof: the timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1877–1887), 1877. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leippe, M. R., & Eisenstadt, D. (2009). The influence of eyewitness expert testimony on jurors’ beliefs and judgments. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification (pp. 169–199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levett, L. M., Danielsen, E. M., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (2005). The psychology of jury and juror decision making. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 365–406). NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 589–644. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.3.4.589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 339–354. doi: 10.1348/000712603767876262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mnookin, J. L. (2015). Constructing evidence and educating juries: the case for modular, made-in-advance expert evidence about eyewitness identification and false confessions. Texas Law Review, 93, 1811–1848.Google Scholar
  40. National Registry of Exonerations (2016). Retrieved October 28, 2016, from
  41. Neal, T. M. S., Christiansen, A., Bornstein, B. H., & Robicheaux, T. R. (2012). The effects of mock jurors’ beliefs about eyewitness performance on trial judgments. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 49–64. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2011.587815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).Google Scholar
  43. New Jersey Supreme Court (2012a). Expanded jury instructions. Retrieved August 11, 2014, from
  44. New Jersey Supreme Court (2012b). Supreme Court releases eyewitness identification criteria for criminal cases [Press release]. Retrieved from
  45. New Jersey v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (2011).Google Scholar
  46. Ogloff, J. R. P., & Rose, V. G. (2005). The comprehension of judicial instructions. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 407–444). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  47. Papailiou, A.P., Yokum, D.V., & Robertson, C.T. (2014). The novel New Jersey eyewitness instruction induces skepticism but not sensitivity. Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 14–17. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2475217.
  48. Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., Wise, R. A., & Holfeld, B. (2013). A teaching aid for improving jurors’ assessment of eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 190–197. doi: 10.1002/acp.2895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. (1996). Judges’ cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14, 31–63.Google Scholar
  51. Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors’ understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 539–554. doi: 10.1007/BF01044622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rose, V. G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: a method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 409–431. doi: 10.1023/A:1010659703309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rose, R. A., Bull, R., & Vrij, A. (2005). Non-biased lineup instructions do matter-a problem for older witnesses. Psychology Crime and Law, 11, 147–159. doi: 10.1080/10683160512331316307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Severance, L. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law and Society Review, 17, 153–197. doi: 10.2307/3053535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sheehan, C. (2011). Making the jurors the “experts”: the case for eyewitness identification jury instructions. Boston College Law Review, 52, 651–693.Google Scholar
  57. Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: a meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–297. doi: 10.1023/A:1024890732059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: a meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 523–540. doi: 10.1023/A:1025438223608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steblay, N., Hosch, H., Culhane, S., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469–492. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback 15 years later: theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 1–18. doi: 10.1037/law0000001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
  62. Wells, G. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: system variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wells, G., & Olson, E. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277–295. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wells, G., & Quinlivan, D. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court’s reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9130-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wells, G., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wiener, R. L., Krauss, D. A., & Lieberman, J. D. (2011). Mock jury research: where do we go from here? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 457–479. doi: 10.1002/bsl.989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela M. Jones
    • 1
    Email author
  • Amanda N. Bergold
    • 2
  • Marlee Kind Dillon
    • 2
  • Steven D. Penrod
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  2. 2.John Jay College & the Graduate CenterCUNYNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations