NCJ Number
86683
Journal
Journal of Applied Psychology Volume: 65 Issue: 1 Dated: (February 1980) Pages: 9-15
Date Published
1980
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Two different experiments used to study the influence on jurors of expert psychological testimony about eyewitness identification found that a major consequence is to increase the amount of attention that jurors give to eyewitness accounts.
Abstract
In the first experiment, 240 students (all registered voters) acted as jurors and received evidence against a defendant in a violent or a nonviolent case. The major piece of prosecution evidence was the eyewitness testimony. Half the jurors read about the testimony of a defense expert on the reliability of eyewitness identification; half did not. Individual verdicts were reached. The results indicated that there were fewer convictions when expert testimony was permitted. In the second experiment, 120 students received evidence about a hypothetical violent crime and then deliberated in juries of 6 to reach a verdict for of against the defendant. Jurors who had read about the expert testimony spent much more time discussing the eyewitness account than did jurors who had not been presented with expert testimony. Thus, results of both experiments suggest that jurors exposed to expert testimony are more likely to scrutinize or discuss eyewitness testimony and thus raise questions of reasonable doubt. Some pros and cons of this influence of the psychological expert testimony are discussed in terms of whether raising doubts is ethical and practical. Study data and eight references are supplied. (Author abstract modified)