In-court identifications affect juror decisions despite being unreliable.

Abstract

Objective: Although in-court identifications provide less evidence of a defendant's guilt than even the most poorly conducted out-of-court identification procedures, they are more likely to be admitted into evidence. The current work examined the effect of an in-court identification on juror decisions and whether exposure to a suggestive out-of-court identification would be less prejudicial than exposure to an in-court identification. Hypotheses: We predicted that exposure to an in-court identification would increase the likelihood that participants would render guilty verdicts. We also predicted that in the presence of an in-court identification, participants would be less likely to convict and rate the eyewitness less favorably when they viewed a poor prior lineup than when they viewed no prior lineup or a good prior lineup. Method: Participants (N = 422 following exclusions) watched a mock criminal trial that varied the nature of the out-of-court identification (none, poor prior lineup, good prior lineup) and whether the eyewitness identified the defendant during trial (present, not present). Results: Both in-court and out-of-court identifications independently affected verdicts, irrespective of whether the out-of-court identification was good or poor. In-court identifications, despite having little to no evidentiary value, increased the likelihood that witnesses rendered guilty verdicts. In contrast, participants were sensitive to variations in the quality of the out-of-court procedure; participants who heard evidence about an identification obtained through a suggestive out-of-court lineup rated the prosecution's case as weaker and the identification as less fair than participants who heard evidence about an identification obtained through a nonsuggestive out-of-court lineup. Conclusions: Although participants rendered judgments that reflected variations in the quality of the out-of-court procedure, in-court identifications increased the likelihood that participants voted guilty, despite their having little to no evidentiary value. Moreover, the in-court procedure bolstered the perceived fairness of the poor prior identification procedure. Barring in-court identifications from the courtroom may be the best way to ensure conviction of the guilty and protection of the innocent. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).