Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Jury Decision Making and Eyewitness Testimony

  • Amanda S. Nicholson
  • Angela M. Yarbrough
  • Steven D. Penrod
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_670

Overview

Jurors are assigned the arduous task of examining and processing copious amounts of evidence – in light of their legal instructions – to determine an appropriate verdict. While jurors do a relatively good job at sorting through the evidence and the law, the complex nature of evidence may lie outside jurors’ “common knowledge,” and additional education may aid jurors as they process such information. This is especially true in the domain of eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is extremely influential despite its potential to be unreliable. Eyewitnesses may appear very confident in their identification of the perpetrator, yet be completely mistaken. Indeed, over 75 % of wrongful convictions overturned due to DNA testing have been linked to faulty eyewitness identifications. Unfortunately, traditional safeguards, such as cross-examination of eyewitnesses, result in little improvement in jurors’ ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitness...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Bornstein B (1999) The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out? Law Hum Behav 23:75–91Google Scholar
  2. Bradfield A, Wells G, Olson E (2002) The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. J Appl Psychol 87:112–120Google Scholar
  3. Charman S, Wells G, Joy S (2011) The dud effect: adding highly dissimilar fillers increases confidence in lineup identifications. Law Hum Behav 35:479–500Google Scholar
  4. Cutler B, Dexter H, Penrod S (1990) Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. J Appl Soc Psychol 20:1197–1207Google Scholar
  5. Deffenbacher K, Bornstein B, Penrod S, Kiernan McGorty E (2004) A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law Hum Behav 28:687–706Google Scholar
  6. 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 Hum Behav 35:200–210Google Scholar
  7. Devenport J, Cutler B (2004) Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law Hum Behav 28:569–576Google Scholar
  8. Greathouse S, Kovera M (2009) Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law Hum Behav 33:70–82Google Scholar
  9. Kassin S, Sommers S (1997) Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: substantive versus procedural considerations. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 23:1046–1054Google Scholar
  10. Kassin S, Anne Tubb V, Hosch H, Memon A (2001) On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research: a new survey of the experts. Am Psychol 56:405–416Google Scholar
  11. Luus CAE, Wells G (1991) Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law Hum Behav 15:43–57Google Scholar
  12. Manson v. Brathwaite (1977) 432 U.S. 98Google Scholar
  13. Meissner C, Brigham J (2001) Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Publ Policy Law 7:3–35Google Scholar
  14. Neil v. Biggers (1972) 409 U.S. 188Google Scholar
  15. New Jersey v. Henderson (2011) 208 N.J. 208Google Scholar
  16. Perry v. New Hampshire (2011) 131 S. Ct. 2932Google Scholar
  17. Saks M, Marti M (1997) A meta-analysis of the effects of jury size. Law Hum Behav 21:451–467Google Scholar
  18. 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. Psychol Bull 118:315–327Google Scholar
  19. Steblay N (1992) A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law Hum Behav 16:413–424Google Scholar
  20. Steblay N (1997) Social influence in eyewitness recall: a meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law Hum Behav 21:283–297Google Scholar
  21. 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 Hum Behav 30:469–492Google Scholar
  22. Steblay N, Dysart J, Wells G (2011) Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: a meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychol Public Policy Law 17:99–139Google Scholar
  23. United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1979)Google Scholar
  24. Wells G, Olson E (2003) Eyewitness testimony. Annu Rev Psychol 54:277–295Google Scholar
  25. Wells G, Steblay N, Dysart J (2011) A test of the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup methods: an initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field studies. American Judicature Society, Des MoinesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda S. Nicholson
    • 1
  • Angela M. Yarbrough
    • 1
  • Steven D. Penrod
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyJohn Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA