Cautioning jurors regarding co-witness discussion: the impact of judicial warnings

This study examined how a judge's warning regarding the impact of co-witness discussion on eyewitness memory might affect juror decision making. 80 participants acting as jurors read a criminal trial transcript in which the major piece of prosecution evidence was the testimony of two eyewitness...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychology, crime & law crime & law, 2013-04, Vol.19 (3), p.287-304
Main Authors: Paterson, Helen M., Anderson, David W.M., Kemp, Richard I.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Biological and medical sciences
Crime
Criminal law
Decision making
expert evidence
Expert witness testimony
eyewitness
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Human
Judges
Judicial process
judicial warning
Juries
jury
Learning. Memory
Litigation
Memory
memory conformity
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study examined how a judge's warning regarding the impact of co-witness discussion on eyewitness memory might affect juror decision making. 80 participants acting as jurors read a criminal trial transcript in which the major piece of prosecution evidence was the testimony of two eyewitnesses. Participants heard that there were some inconsistencies between the initial statements made by the two eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime, but that later one of the eyewitnesses amended her account so that it matched that of her co-witness. Half heard an admission by the eyewitnesses that they discussed the event after making their initial statements, while the others heard that the eyewitnesses denied any discussion had occurred. The trial judge then gave either a general warning about eyewitness accuracy or a specific warning about relying on eyewitness agreement as an indicator of accuracy when eyewitness discussion had occurred. After reading the transcript, each participant gave his or her individual ratings regarding verdict, belief in the eyewitnesses and reliance on various witnessing factors. The specific warning enhanced juror sensitivity to eyewitness discussion when assessing the evidence of the inconsistent eyewitness, but not the consistent eyewitness. There was no evidence that the warning resulted in scepticism.
ISSN:1068-316X
1477-2744
DOI:10.1080/1068316X.2011.631539