Citation

Jones AM. Psychol. Crime Law 2020; 26(8): 745-767.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/1068316X.2020.1733570

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Eyewitness identifications provide critical evidence as they are often persuasive to jurors, but documented misidentifications have led to wrongful convictions. Researchers have examined how jurors evaluate multiple eyewitnesses, but not different types of eyewitnesses, such as bystanders and victims. Additionally, none of this research has examined jurors' ability to evaluate bystander and victim identifications that vary in quality. Two studies examined student and community members' perceptions of bystander and victim witnesses. Study 1 participants read about a good or poor-quality identification made by a bystander or victim. Study 2 participants read about both bystander and victim identifications that varied in quality. Both studies found jurors were sensitive to identification quality as demonstrated by a variety of legal decisions, including verdict, though the quality of a second identification in Study 2 did not change any legal decisions. Multiple differences between student and community member samples emerged across both studies suggesting that community members are more likely to trust witnesses and convict. Reliance on student samples may overestimate jurors' ability to evaluate multiple eyewitnesses and underestimate the likelihood of conviction based on flawed eyewitness evidence.

Language: en

Keywords

Bystander; eyewitness; eyewitness identification; juror decision making; sample differences