Abstract
Eyewitness evidence is often important in criminal cases, but false or misleading eyewitness evidence is known to be a leading cause of wrongful convictions. One explanation for mistakes that jurors are making when evaluating eyewitness evidence is their lack of accurate knowledge relating to false memory. This article examines lay beliefs relating to memory and ways in which they diverge from expert consensus. It identifies ways in which current directions provided to jurors in this area are likely to be deficient in influencing juror knowledge and in helping them apply that knowledge in a case context, and develops criteria that can be used to assess the likely effectiveness of directions. A new evidence-based training direction is designed based on these criteria, and tested in a mock jury study (N = 411). Results suggest that the proposed direction is more effective than a basic direction in influencing juror knowledge and facilitating the application of that knowledge to case facts.
Highlights
Eyewitness evidence is often important in criminal cases, but false or misleading eyewitness evidence is known to be a leading cause of wrongful convictions
It draws on psychological theory relating to memory and decision-making to show that current directions may be ineffective in both of these regards and to develop criteria for effective directions
Vignettes participants read varied in terms of the strength of the witness evidence in the case, and the direction jurors received
Summary
Eyewitness evidence is often important in criminal cases, but false or misleading eyewitness evidence is known to be a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Research in both law and cognitive science shows that while laypeople do have their own experiences of memory, they face predictable difficulties when evaluating the memory of others These difficulties are borne out in real cases—in both the United States and United Kingdom, for example, false or misleading eyewitness testimony has been identified as a leading cause of wrongful conviction (National Registry of Exonerations, 2021; UK Miscarriages of Justice Registry, 2021, see Garrett, 2012; Wells et al, 2006). It suggests that to be effective in improving evaluations a direction must appropriately influence juror knowledge and facilitate the application of that knowledge in a case context It draws on psychological theory relating to memory and decision-making to show that current directions may be ineffective in both of these regards and to develop criteria for effective directions. The results suggest that giving jurors a more detailed and evidence-based direction has the potential to minimise predictable weaknesses in their decision-making, without substituting trial by jury for trial by expert
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
