Henderson Instructions: Do They Enhance Evidence Evaluation?

References

• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., Deffenbacher, K. A., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2012). Effects of exposure time and cognitive operations on facial identification accuracy: A meta-analysis of two variables associated with initial memory strength. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 473–490. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2010.508458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commonwealth v. Gomes, 453 Mass. 506 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215–225. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370070206
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1999). The case against traditional safeguards: Preventing mistaken convictions in eyewitness identification trials. In R. Roesch, & S. Hart (Eds.), Psychology and law: State of the discipline. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287–307. doi:10.1007/s10979006-9008-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmarais, S. L., & Read, J. D. (2010). 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, 200–210. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9232-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, M. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2014). Judicial instruction on eyewitness identification: A Meta-Analysis ( Unpublished manuscript).
   Google Scholar
• Douglass, A. B., & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859–869. doi:10.1002/acp.1237
   Web of Science ®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
• Fischer, G. J. (1997). Gender effects on individual verdicts and on mock jury verdicts in a simulated acquaintance rape trial. Sex Roles, 36, 491–501. doi:10.1007/BF02766686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.1988.tb00016.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F3d 725 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States: 1989 through 2003. Retrieved from http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/pdfs/ExonerationReport4.19.04.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, P. J., Slovic, P., & Rorer, L. G. (1968). An Analysis-of-Variance model for the assessment of configural cue utilization in clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 338–349. doi:10.1037/h0025665
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (1984). Eyewitness identification: Victims versus bystanders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 519–529. doi:10.1111/jasp.1984.14.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877–1887. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laub, C. E., Kimbrough, C. D., & Bornstein, B. H. (2014). Mock juror perceptions of eyewitnesses vs. earwitnesses: Do safeguards help? American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 34, 33–56.
   Google Scholar
• Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 363–374. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9113-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 124–148. doi:10.1037/a0016309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massachusetts Supreme Court. (2015). Statement of the Supreme Judicial Court: Model jury instructions on eyewitness identification. 473 Mass. 1051
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, K., Vattano, F., & Viney, W. (1993). Verdict, sentencing, and certainty as a function of sex of juror and amount of evidence in a simulated rape trial. Psychological Reports, 72, 575–583. doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.72.2.575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, D. R. (2010). The effect of research-informed jury instructions on potential jurors’ verdicts in eyewitness case vignettes ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fresno, CA: Alliant International University.
   Google Scholar
• Neil vs. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S. Ct. 375; 34 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1972).
   Google Scholar
• New Jersey v. Henderson, 27, A.3d 872 (2011).
   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, e0142695. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prager, I. G. (1991). Timing of judicial instructions and pretrial publicity. Forensic Reports, 4, 451–453.
   Google Scholar
• Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., Wise, R. A., & Holfeld, B. (2013). A teaching aid for improving jurors’ assessments of eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 190–197. doi:10.1002/acp.2895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinlivan, D. S. (2012). Effects of pre-admonition suggestions on eyewitness’ beliefs, expectations, choosing rates, and retrospective judgments. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 72, 7673.
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. E. (1996). Judges’ cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14, 31–66.
   Google Scholar
• Safer, M. A., Murphy, R. P., Wise, R. A., Bussey, L., Millett, C., & Holfeld, B. (2016). Educating jurors about eyewitness testimony in criminal cases with circumstantial and forensic evidence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 86–92. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheck, B., & Neufeld, P. (2006). Toward the formation of innocence commissions in America. Judicature, 86, 104–105.
   Google Scholar
• Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2001). Actual innocence: Five days to execution, and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. Eugene, OR: Good Works on Earth.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic, P. (1969). Analyzing the expert judge: A descriptive study of a stockbroker’s decision processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 255–263. doi:10.1037/h0027773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smalarz, L., & Wells, G. (2014). Post-identification feedback to eyewitnesses impairs evaluators’ abilities to discriminate between accurate and mistaken testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 194–202. doi:10.1037/lhb0000067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. K. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413–424. doi:10.1007/BF02352267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. K. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–297. doi:10.1023/A:1024890732059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. K., 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, 523–540. doi:10.1023/A:1025438223608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: Theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 1–18. doi:10.1037/law0000001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The National Registry of Exonerations: Percent Exonerations By Contributing Factor. (2016). University of Michigan Law School and Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law. Retrieved from http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx
   Google Scholar
• United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2003). A survey of judges' knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony. Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, 40, 6–16.
   Google Scholar
• Wise, R. A., Fishman, C., & Safer, M. A. (2009). How to analyze the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in a criminal case. Connecticut Law Review, 42, 435–513.
   Google Scholar