Improving juror sensitivity to specific eyewitness factors: judicial instructions fail the test. Issue 3 (3rd May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jones, Angela M.; Bergold, Amanda N.; Penrod, Steven
• Is Part Of: Psychiatry, psychology, and law. Volume 27:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 366
• Page End: 385
• Publication Date: 2020-05-03
• Subjects: eyewitness identification -- judicial instructions -- New Jersey v Henderson -- safeguard -- wrongful convictions; Criminal psychology -- Periodicals; Forensic psychiatry -- Periodicals; Mentally ill offenders -- Periodicals; 345.9404
• DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2020.1719379
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1321-8719

Abstract

Abstract : A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision recognized the difficulty jurors have with evaluating eyewitness evidence. This decision resulted in the development of instructions that highlight factors affecting identification accuracy. Research has explored the efficacy of eyewitness instructions for improving jurors' decision-making. Jurors in these studies are typically presented with identifications that manipulate multiple witnessing and identification conditions simultaneously, making it difficult to ascertain whether instructions help jurors evaluate any one eyewitness factor. We conducted two experiments to examine how jurors evaluate eight individual eyewitness factors with and without instructions. Across both experiments, none of the individual eyewitness factors nor instructions influenced jurors. Instructions only assisted jurors when multiple eyewitness factors were collapsed to create either extremely good or poor-quality identifications. These findings contribute to the long history of jurors remaining largely insensitive to the nuances of witnessing and identification conditions. Current safeguards may only assist jurors under limited circumstances.