Abstract
In attempting to discredit an eyewitness, it is a common strategy for an attorney to highlight inconsistencies in the eyewitness's recall testimony during cross-examination and encourage the jurors to infer, based on those inconsistencies, that the eyewitness's memory is faulty. An experiment was conducted to examine the effectiveness of this cross-examination strategy. Subjects viewed a simulated cross-examination and rendered judgmenets about the eyewitness and defendant. The type of inconsistent testimony was manipulated between subjects. Subjects exposed to inconsistent recall testimony about either central or peripheral details perceived the eyewitness as less credible (as evidenced by ratings on multiple dimensions) and the defendant as less culpable. Inconsistency on central details led to fewer convictions. Results point to the effectiveness of this cross-examination strategh.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bailey, F. L., & Rothblatt, H. B. (1985).Successful techniques for criminal trials. Rochester, NY: Lawyers Co-operative.
Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1989). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgment.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1171–1192.
Brigham, J. C., & Wolfskeil, M. P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identification.Law and Human Behavior, 7, 337–349.
Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1991). Nonadverserial methods for improving juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197–1207.
Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (in press).Mistaken identification: The Eyewitness, psychology and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191.
Fisher, R. P., & Cutler, B. L. (in press). Relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. In G. M. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran, & C. Wilson (Eds.),Psychology and law: Advances in research. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (1994). Tallahassee, FL: The Florida Bar.
Greene, E. (1988). Judge's instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276.
Leippe, M. R., & Romanczyk, A. (1989). Reactions to child (versus adult) eyewitnesses: The influence of jurors' preconceptions and witness behavior.Law and Human Behavior, 13, 103–132.
Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L., & Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypotheses.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 447–459.
Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O'Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension.Law and Human Behavior, 13, 333–339.
Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations?Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79–89.
People v. MacDonald, 37 Cal. 3d 351, 208 Cal. Rptr. 236 (1984).
Prager, I. R., Moran, G., & Sanchez, J. (1992).Assistant Public Defenders: Job analysis project.Unpublished manuscript. Florida International University, Miami.
U.S. v. Telfaire, 469 F. 2d 552, 558–559 (1972).
U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
Walters, C. M. (1985). Admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification.California Law Review, 73, 1402–1430.
Wells, G. L., & Leippe, M. R. (1981). How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Using memory for peripheral detail can be misleading.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 682–687.
Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors are indebted to Laura Bonich, Theresa Younes, and Catherine Captain for their assistance in preparation of materials and data collection. We also thank Michael Leippe and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
About this article
Cite this article
Berman, G.L., Narby, D.J. & Cutler, B.L. Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors' evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law Hum Behav 19, 79–88 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499074
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499074