Effects of Testimonial Inconsistencies and Eyewitness Confidence on Mock-Juror Judgments

This study examined the interaction between testimonial consistency and eyewitness confidence on mock-jurors' judgments of probability that the defendant committed the crime and verdicts. In a 2 (testimonial consistency) × 2 (confidence) between-groups design, 130 mock-jurors listened to an audio-taped trial of a person charged with armed robbery. Manipulations were contained in the prosecution witness's responses to detailed questioning by prosecution and defense attorneys. Although consistency is considered to be a key marker of accuracy, its impact on judgments was weak and nonsignificant. Witness confidence had a strong influence on judgments, whether testimony was consistent or inconsistent. We suggested that witness confidence may be more likely to emerge as a dominant influence on juror judgments when the testimony is wide ranging rather than relatively brief and concerned only with a specific issue (e.g., identification confidence).

[1]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases , 1988 .

[2]  R. Potter,et al.  Perceptions of witness behaviour‐accuracy relationships held by police, lawyers and mock‐jurors , 1999 .

[3]  G. Goodman,et al.  Face-to-Face Confrontation: Effects of Closed-Circuit Technology on Children's Eyewitness Testimony and Jurors' Decisions , 1998, Law and human behavior.

[4]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses , 1989 .

[5]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  Reactions to child (Versus adult) eyewitnesses , 1989 .

[6]  Neil Brewer,et al.  Effects of mood and emotion on juror processing and judgments. , 2002, Behavioral sciences & the law.

[7]  Garrett L. Berman,et al.  Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors' evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts , 1995 .

[8]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Can People Detect Eyewitness-Identification Accuracy Within and Across Situations? , 1981 .

[9]  P. Granhag,et al.  Effects of preconceptions on deception detection and new answers to why lie-catchers often fail , 2000 .

[10]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. , 1979, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  Roger E. Salhany.  Cross-examination: The art of the advocate , 1988 .

[12]  K. Deffenbacher,et al.  Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? , 1982 .

[13]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  The Tractability of Eyewitness Confidence and Its Implications for Triers of Fact , 1981 .

[14]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Mock‐Juror Evaluations of Eyewitness Testimony: A Test of Metamemory Hypotheses1 , 1986 .

[15]  Garrett L. Berman,et al.  Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision-making , 1996 .

[16]  K. McConkey,et al.  Knowledge of eyewitness memory , 1989 .

[17]  Ronald P. Fisher,et al.  Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony , 1999 .

[18]  R L Stubblefield,et al.  Behavioral sciences and the law. , 1966, The American journal of orthopsychiatry.

[19]  C. Hollin,et al.  Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: A British survey , 1987 .

[20]  G. Wells,et al.  The Perceived Validity of Eyewitness Identification Testimony: A Test of the Five Biggers Criteria , 2000, Law and human behavior.