The Impact of Judicial Commentary concerning Eyewitness Identifications on Jury Decision Making

Abstract

One of the most significant issues currently confronting the criminal justice system is the development of effective safeguards against unreliable eyewitness identification. In response to this problem, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in United States v. Telfaire' proposed a set of model instructions which trial judges may employ in focusing juror attention on the issues surrounding eyewitness testimony. Although these instructions do not describe recent psychological research that documents the numerous factors which limit the accuracy of eyewitnesses,2 nevertheless they highlight the reasons a juror should evaluate such testimony carefully. Judicial commentary, along with expert witness testimony and defense counsel's cross-examination, represents a potentially important safeguard against false eyewitness testimony. Since the Telfaire decision, several other courts have adopted model instructions for cases involving eyewitness testimony.3 Unfortunately there is no research investigating the impact of judicial cautionary instructions about eyewitness testimony. Accordingly, this Article begins to clarify the relationship between this form of judicial commentary and the process of jury decision making.