How Effective Are the Cross-Examination and Expert Testimony Safeguards? Jurors' Perceptions of the Suggestiveness and Fairness of Biased Lineup Procedures

Mock jurors ( N = 800) viewed a videotaped trial that included information about a lineup identification procedure. Suggestiveness of the eyewitness identification procedure varied in terms of foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Expert testimony regarding the factors that influence lineup su...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of applied psychology Vol. 87; no. 6; pp. 1042 - 1054
Main Authors Devenport, Jennifer L, Stinson, Veronica, Cutler, Brian L, Kravitz, David A
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Washington, DC American Psychological Association 01.12.2002
Subjects
Adjudication
Applied psychology
Bias
Biological and medical sciences
Courts
Crime
Cross examination
Expert Testimony
Expert witness testimony
Fairness
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Human
Humans
Identity parades
Judgement
Judiciary
Juries
Jurors
Law
Litigation
Memory
Perception
Perceptions
Psychology
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Social attribution, perception and cognition
Social psychology
Studies
Suggestibility
Suggestion
Surveys and Questionnaires
Testimony
USA
Variance analysis
Videotape Recording
Witnesses
Human
Justice
Testimony
Suggestibility
Information layout
Guilt
Cognitive bias
Social cognition
Criminology
Judgment
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Mock jurors ( N = 800) viewed a videotaped trial that included information about a lineup identification procedure. Suggestiveness of the eyewitness identification procedure varied in terms of foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Expert testimony regarding the factors that influence lineup suggestiveness was also manipulated. Criteria included juror ratings of lineup suggestiveness and fairness, ratings of defendant culpability, and verdicts. Jurors were sensitive to foil bias but only minimally sensitive to instruction and presentation biases. Expert testimony enhanced juror sensitivity only to instruction bias. These results have implications for the effectiveness of cross-examination and expert testimony as safeguards against erroneous convictions resulting from mistaken identifications.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0021-9010
1939-1854
DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1042