The Novel New Jersey Eyewitness Instruction Induces Skepticism but Not Sensitivity
Athan P. Papailiou
University of Arizona
David V. Yokum
University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law; University of Arizona - College of Science
Christopher T. Robertson
University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law; Harvard University - Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics
December 9, 2015
PLoS ONE 10(12): e0142695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142695
Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 14-17
In recent decades, social scientists have shown that the reliability of eyewitness identifications is much worse than laypersons tend to believe. Although courts have only recently begun to react to this evidence, the New Jersey judiciary has reformed its jury instructions to notify jurors about the frailties of human memory, the potential for lineup administrators to nudge witnesses towards suspects that they police have already identified, and the advantages of alternative lineup procedures, including blinding of the administrator. This experiment tested the efficacy of New Jersey’s jury instruction. In a 2×2 between-subjects design, mock jurors (N = 335) watched a 35-minute murder trial, wherein identification quality was either “weak” or “strong” and either the New Jersey or a “standard” instruction was delivered. Jurors were more than twice as likely to convict when the standard instruction was used (OR = 2.55; 95% CI = 1.37–4.89, p < 0.001). The New Jersey instruction, however, did not improve juror's ability to discern quality; rather, jurors receiving those instructions indiscriminatingly discounted “weak” and “strong” testimony in equal measure.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 17
Keywords: jury instruction, State v. Henderson, eyewitness testimony, diagnosticity
Date posted: August 3, 2014 ; Last revised: December 15, 2015
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 2.547 seconds