The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony.
It has been argued that psychologists should provide expert evidence to help jurors discriminate between accurate and inaccurate eyewitness identifications. In this article we compare the effects of judicial instruction with expert evidence that is either congruent or incongruent with the ground truth, focusing on juror ability to evaluate "real" eyewitness evidence. In contrast to studies which have employed "fictional" eyewitness designs, we found no appreciable effect of either congruent or incongruent expert evidence on participant-juror sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy. We discuss the role of methodology on the inferences and conclusions that can be made regarding the impact of eyewitness expert evidence.
Martire
Kristy A
KA
School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia. k.martire@unsw.edu.au
Kemp
Richard I
RI
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003198:Computer Simulation; D003657:Decision Making; D005104:Expert Testimony; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D011939:Mental Recall; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014495:Universities; D014584:User-Computer Interface