Abstract
It would seem that the American judiciary have traditionally viewed knowledge of variables affecting eyewitness behavior as a part of common understanding. The presumption would then be that there is a body of knowledge in this regard that is indeed shared and that this shared understanding conforms substantially to objective reality. Multiple-choice format questionnaires designed to tap such knowledge were administered to two somewhat disparate samples of college students (n=176) and two samples of the citizenry at large in Washington D.C., 46 of whom had not had criminal trial jury experience in the previous five years and 43 of whom had. Across samples the typical respondent's performance was significantly above chance but not at all high in absolute terms. This typical performance involved well above chance levels of accuracy on about half the items and not different from chance accuracy on the others. At least within the college student samples, certain demographic variables were not related to accuracy of response. Likewise, previous criminal trial jury experience did not improve accuracy for the Washington D.C. respondents by an amount that would be practically significant. It was concluded that the common understanding doctrine cannot in general be supported.
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Notes
Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. Is eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? Paper presented at the SSRC Law and Psychology Conference, Trinity College, Oxford, 1981.
Deffenbacher, K. A. The influence of arousal on reliability of testimony. Paper presented at the SSRC Law and Psychology Conference, Trinity College, Oxford, 1981.
Wells, G. L. Personal communication, November 1981.
References
Brigham, J. C. The accuracy of eyewitness evidence: How do attorneys see it?The Florida Bar Journal, 1981, November, 714–721.
Brigham, J. C., & Barkowitz, P. Do “they all look alike?” The effect of race, sex, experience and attitudes on the ability to recognize faces.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1978,8, 306–318.
Clifford, B. R. A critique of eyewitness research. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),Practical aspects of memory, London and New York: Academic Press, 1978.
Deffenbacher, K. A., & Horney, J. Psycholegal aspects of face identification. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd (Eds.),Perceiving and remembering faces. London and New York: Academic Press, 1981.
Dyas v. United States. 1977, 376 A 2d 827.
Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company, 1975.
Goodrich, G. H. Should experts be allowed to testify concerning eyewitness testimony in criminal cases?Judges' Journal, 1975,14, 70–71.
Hutchins, R. M., & Slesinger, D. Some observations on the law of evidence: Spontaneous exclamations.Columbia Law Review, 1928,28, 432.
Loftus, E. F.Evewitness testimony. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979.
Marshall, J.Law and psychology in conflict. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.
People v. Guzman. 1975. 47 Cal. App. 3d 380, 385; 121 Cal. Rptr. 69, 71.
Suggs, D. L. The use of psychological research by the judiciary: Do the courts adequately assess the validity of the research?Law and Human Behavior, (1979),3, 135–148.
United States v. Amaral. 1973. 488 F 2d 146 (9th Cir.).
Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974,29, 305–315.
Woocher, F. D. Did your eyes deceive you? Expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.Stanford Law Review, 1977,28, 969–1030.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The work in this report was partially supported by an NSF grant to the second author. Thanks are also due the Washington D.C. Public Defender's Office for their assistance in data collection. The comments and suggestions of Gary Wells and an anonymous reviewer are gratefully acknowledged as well.
About this article
Cite this article
Deffenbacher, K.A., Loftus, E.F. Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior?. Law Hum Behav 6, 15–30 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049310
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049310