Improving juror sensitivity to specific eyewitness factors: judicial instructions fail the test

References

• Abshire, J., & Bornstein, B.H. (2003). Juror sensitivity to the cross-race effect. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 471–480. doi:10.1023/a:1025481905861
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaudry, J.L., Lindsay, R.C.L., Leach, A.-M., Mansour, J.K., Bertrand, M.I., & Kalmet, N. (2015). The effect of evidence type, identification accuracy, line-up presentation, and line-up administration on observers’ perceptions of eyewitnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20(2), 343–364. doi:10.1111/lcrp.12030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergold, A.N., Jones, A.M., Dillon, M., & Penrod, S. (in press). Eyewitnesses in the courtroom: A jury-level experimental examination of the impact of the Henderson instructions. Journal of Experimental Criminology. doi:10.1007/s11292-020-09412-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B.H., Neuschatz, J., Magyarics, C., Golding, J.M., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., & Luecht, K. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. doi:10.1037/lhb0000223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charman, S.D., & Quiroz, V. (2016). Blind sequential lineup administrator reduces both false identifications and confidence in those false identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 40(5), 477–487. doi:10.1037/lhb0000197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B.L., Dexter, H., & Penrod, S. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(14), 1197–1207. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00400.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B.L., & Penrod, S. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., & Dexter, H.R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13(3), 311–332. doi:10.1007/BF01067032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., & Stuve, T.E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 41–55. doi:10.1007/BF01064273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmarais, S., & Read, D. (2011). After 30 years, what do we know about what jurors know? A meta-analytic review of lay knowledge regarding eyewitness factors. Law and Human Behavior, 35(3), 200–210. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9232-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devenport, J.L., & Cutler, B.L. (2004). Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28(5), 569–576. doi:10.1023/B:LAHU.0000046434.39181.07
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devenport, J.L., Cutler, B.L., Stinson, V., & Kravitz, D.A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1042–1054. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.6.1042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, M., Jones, A.M., Bergold, A.N., Hui, C., & Penrod, S. (2017). Henderson instructions: Do they enhance evidence evaluation? Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 17, 1–24. doi:10.1080/15228932.2017.1235964
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dysart, J.E., Lawson, V.Z., & Rainey, A. (2012). Blind lineup administration as a prophylactic against postidentification feedback effect. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 312–319. doi:10.1037/h0093921
   Google Scholar
• Fawcett, J.M., Russell, E.J., Peace, K.A., & Christie, J. (2013). Of guns and geese: A meta-analytic review of the ‘weapon focus’ literature. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 19, 35–66. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.599325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, R.J., Price, H.L., Oriet, C., & Charman, S.D. (2013). The effect of suspect-filler similarity on eyewitness identification decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(2), 151–164. doi:10.1037/a0030618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greathouse, S., & Kovera, M. (2009). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 70–82. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instructions on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 252–276. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, A.M., Bergold, A.N., Dillon, M., & Penrod, S. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of Henderson instructions and expert testimony: Which safeguard improves jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 29–52. doi:10.1007/s11292-016-9279-6
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A.M., & Penrod, S. (2018). Improving the effectiveness of the Henderson instruction safeguard against unreliable eyewitness identification. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24, 177–193. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovera, M.B., & Evelo, A.J. (2017). The case for double-blind lineup administration. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(4), 421–437. doi:10.1037/law0000139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lampinen, J.M., Erickson, W.B., Moore, K.N., & Hittson, A. (2014). Effects of distance on face recognition: Implications for eyewitness identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(6), 1489–1494. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0641-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leippe, M.R., & Eisenstadt, D. (2009). The influence of eyewitness expert testimony on jurors’ beliefs and judgments. In B.L. Cutler & B.L. Cutler (Eds.), Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification (pp. 169–199). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsay, R.C.L., Semmler, C., Weber, N., Brewer, N., & Lindsay, M.R. (2008). How variations in distance affect eyewitness reports and identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 32(6), 526–535. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9128-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meissner, C., & Brigham, J. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 3–35. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modjadidi, K., & Kovera, M.B. (2018). Viewing videotaped identification procedure increases juror sensitivity to single-blind photo-array administration. Law and Human Behavior, 42(3), 244–257. doi:10.1037/lhb0000288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T.M.S., Christiansen, A., Bornstein, B.H., & Robicheaux, T.R. (2012). The effects of mock jurors’ beliefs about eyewitness performance on trial judgments. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 49–64. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.587815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• New Jersey Supreme Court. (2012). Expanded jury instructions. Retrieved from http://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/criminalcharges/idoutct.pdf
   Google Scholar
• New Jersey v. Henderson. (2011). 27 A.3d 872.
   Google Scholar
• Papailiou, A.P., Yokum, D.V., & Robertson, C.T. (2015). The novel New Jersey eyewitness instruction induces skepticism but not sensitivity. PLoS One, 10(12), e0142695. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E.J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pawlenko, N.B., Safer, M.A., Wise, R.A., & Holfeld, B. (2013). A teaching aid for improving jurors’ assessment of eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 190–197. doi:10.1002/acp.2895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–1031. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, M.R., McAuliff, B.D., Kovera, M.B., & Cutler, B.L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 940–951. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.940
   Google Scholar
• Salerno, J.M., & Diamond, S.S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 174–179. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.2.174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan, C. (2011). Making the jurors the “experts”: The case for eyewitness identification jury instructions. Boston College Law Review, 52, 651–693.
   Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21(3), 283–297. doi:10.1023/A:1024890732059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 523–540. doi:10.1023/A:1025438223608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N., Wells, G.L., & Douglas, A.B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: Theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 20(1), 1–18. doi:10.1037/law0000001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States v. Telfaire. (1979). 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir.
   Google Scholar
• Vallano, J.P., Pettalia, J., Pica, E., & Pozzulo, J. (2018). An examination of mock jurors’ judgments in familiar identification cases. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 34(2), 121–133. doi:10.1007/s11896-018-9266-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, W.A., & Van Der Schrier, J.H. (1996). Face recognition as a function of distance and illumination: A practical tool for use in the courtroom. Psychology, Crime and Law, 2(4), 321–332. doi:10.1080/10683169608409787
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1546–1557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G.L., & Loftus, E.F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for people and events. In A.M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (pp. 149–160). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G.L., & Olson, E.A. (2001). The other-race effect in eyewitness identification. What do we do about it? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 230–246. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G., & Quinlivan, D. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court’s reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 1–24. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9130-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wixted, J.T., & Wells, G.L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: A new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(1), 10–65. doi:10.1177/1529100616686966
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, D.B., Carlucci, M.E., Evans, J.R., & Compo, N.S. (2010). Turning a blind eye to double blind lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 849–867. doi:10.1002/acp.1592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, D.M., Chorn, J.A., Rhead, L.M., Evelo, A.J., & Kovera, M.B. (2017). Memory strength and lineup presentation moderate effects of administrator influence on mistaken identifications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23, 460–473. doi:10.1037/xap0000147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar