Abstract
Three studies examined the influence of an eyewitness’ prior relationship with the defendant in combination with identification delay (study 1; N = 281), defendant appearance change between the time of the crime and identification (study 2; N = 194), and type of descriptors reported (i.e., perpetrator or crime scene) and presence of descriptor errors (study 3; N = 304) on mock jurors’ judgments. Familiarity was not influential in dichotomous verdicts (i.e., guilty vs. not guilty); however, in studies 1 and 2, when the eyewitness and defendant shared a personal relationship (e.g., familial), mock jurors were more likely to assign higher guilt ratings to the defendant, suggesting that personal relationships may sway jurors to believe that an accurate identification can be made. In study 3, when descriptor errors were present, there were more guilty verdicts, thus supporting prior research that has found when descriptor errors are introduced, the testimony is viewed as less credible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The stranger condition was denoted as the reference group.
Twelve versions were created because whether the defendant had a beard or no beard at the time of the crime and subsequent lineup were counterbalanced within the six conditions. For example, in the no appearance change condition this, beard at time of crime and lineup and no beard at time of crime and lineup were counterbalanced within the condition.
The stranger condition was denoted as the reference group.
References
Berman GL, Cutler BL (1996) Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. J Appl Psychol 81(2):170–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170
Berman GL, Narby DJ, Cutler BL (1995) Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors’ evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law Hum Behav 19(2):79–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170
Bornstein BH, Golding JM, Neuschatz J, Kimbroughhristopher, Reed K, Magyarics C, Luecht K (2017) Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: a meta-analysis. Law Hum Behav 41(1):13–28
Boyce M, Beaudry J, Lindsay RCL (2007) Belief of eyewitness identification evidence. In: Lindsay RCL, Ross DF, Read JD, Toglia MP (eds) Handbook of eyewitness psychology, vol 2. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 501–525
Brewer N, Potter R, Fisher RP, Bond N, Luszcz MA (1999) Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Appl Cogn Psychol 13(4):297–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4
Bruer K, Pozzulo JD (2014) Influence of eyewitness age and recall error on mock juror decision-making. Leg Criminol Psychol 19(2):332–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.l2001
Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Stuve TE (1988) Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law Hum Behav 12(1):41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064273
Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Dexter HR (1990) Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law Hum Behav 14(2):185–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01062972
Deffenbacher K, Bornstein B, McGorty E, Penrod S (2008) Forgetting the once-seen face: estimating the strength of an eyewitness’s memory representation. J Exp Psychol Appl 14(2):139–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.139
Ebbesen EB, Rienick BC (1998) Retention interval and eyewitness memory for events and personal identifying attributes. J Appl Psychol 83(5):745–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.745
Fahsing IA, Karl A, Granhag PA (2004) The man behind the mask: accuracy and predictors of eyewitness offender descriptions. J Appl Psychol 89(4):722–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.722
Flowe HD, Mehta A, Ebbesen E (2011) The role of eyewitness identification evidence in felony case dispositions. Psychol Public Policy Law 17(1):140–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021311
Gross SR, Jacoby K, Matheson DJ, Montgomery N, Patil S (2005) Exonerations in the United States between 1989 through 2003. J Crim Law Criminol 95(2):523–560
Innocence Project (2017) Clarence Elkins. Retrieved from: https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/clarence-elkins/
Keller SR, Wiener RL (2011) What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity. Behav Sci Law 29(3):376–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.971
Leippe MR, Romanczyk A (1989) Reactions to child (versus adult) eyewitnesses: the influence of jurors’ preconceptions and witness behavior. Law Hum Behav 13(2):103–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01055919
Lindsay RCL, Lim R, Marando L, Cully D (1986) Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: a test of metamemory hypotheses. J Appl Soc Psychol 16(5):447–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01151.x
Memon A, Gabbert F (2003) Unravelling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit-present lineups. Appl Cogn Psychol 17(6):703–714. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.909
O’Neill MC, Pozzulo JD (2012) Jurors’ judgments across multiple identifications and descriptor inconsistencies. Am J Forensic Psychol 30:39–66
Pennington N, Hastie R (1986) Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(2):242–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.242
Pezdek K, Avila-Mora E, Sperry K (2009) Does trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluation the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony. Appl Cogn Psychol 24(5):673–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1578
Pozzulo JD (2017) The young eyewitness: how well do children and adolescents describe and identify perpetrators? American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.1037/14956-000
Pozzulo JD, Balfour J (2006) Children’s and adult’s eyewitness identification accuracy when a culprit changes his appearance: comparing simultaneous and elimination lineup procedures. Leg Criminol Psychol 11(1):25–34. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532505X52626
Pozzulo JD, Marciniak S (2006) Comparing identification procedures when the perpetrator has changed appearance. Psychol Crime Law 12(4):429–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160500050690
Pozzulo JD, Pettalia JL, Bruer K, Javaid S (2014) Eyewitness age and familiarity with the defendant: influential factors in mock jurors’ assessment of defendant guilt? Am J Forensic Psychol 32:39–51
Ross DF, Jurden F, Lindsay R, Keeney J (2003) Replications and limitations of a two-factor model of child witness credibility. J Appl Soc Psychol 33(2):418–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01903.x
Semmler C, Brewer N (2002) Effects of mood and emotion on juror processing and judgments. Behav Sci Law 20(4):423–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.502
Shapiro P, Penrod S (1986) Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychol Bull 100(2):139–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.139
Sharp M, Janigian J, Hess A, Hayward B (2009) Eyewitness memory in context: toward a taxonomy of eyewitness error. J Police Crim Psychol 24(1):36–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-008-9029-4
Sheahan CL, Pozzulo JD, Reed J, Pica E (2017) The role of familiarity with the defendant, type of descriptor discrepancy, and eyewitness age on mock jurors’ perceptions of eyewitness testimony. J Police Crim Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9232-2
Sigler JN, Couch JV (2002) Eyewitness testimony and the jury verdict. N Am J Psychol 4(1):143–148
U.S. Department of Justice (2012) Violent crime against youth, 2004–2010 (NCJ 240106). Retrieved from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vcay9410.pdf
Wiener RL, Krauss DA, Lieberman JD (2011) Mock jury research: where do we go from here? Behav Sci Law 29(3):467–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.989
Yarmey D (2004) Eyewitness recall and photo identification: a field experiment. Psychol Crime Law 10(1):53–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316021000058379
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pica, E., Sheahan, C., Mesesan, A. et al. The Influence of Prior Familiarity, Identification Delay, Appearance Change, and Descriptor Type and Errors on Mock Jurors’ Judgments. J Police Crim Psych 33, 289–301 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9251-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9251-z