Evaluating witness testimony: Juror knowledge, false memory, and the utility of evidence-based directions.

Rebecca K Helm
{"title":"Evaluating witness testimony: Juror knowledge, false memory, and the utility of evidence-based directions.","authors":"Rebecca K Helm","doi":"10.1177/13657127211031018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Eyewitness evidence is often important in criminal cases, but false or misleading eyewitness evidence is known to be a leading cause of wrongful convictions. One explanation for mistakes that jurors are making when evaluating eyewitness evidence is their lack of accurate knowledge relating to false memory. This article examines lay beliefs relating to memory and ways in which they diverge from expert consensus. It identifies ways in which current directions provided to jurors in this area are likely to be deficient in influencing juror knowledge and in helping them apply that knowledge in a case context, and develops criteria that can be used to assess the likely effectiveness of directions. A new evidence-based training direction is designed based on these criteria, and tested in a mock jury study (N = 411). Results suggest that the proposed direction is more effective than a basic direction in influencing juror knowledge and facilitating the application of that knowledge to case facts.</p>","PeriodicalId":93382,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of evidence & proof","volume":"25 4","pages":"264-285"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8508426/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of evidence & proof","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211031018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Eyewitness evidence is often important in criminal cases, but false or misleading eyewitness evidence is known to be a leading cause of wrongful convictions. One explanation for mistakes that jurors are making when evaluating eyewitness evidence is their lack of accurate knowledge relating to false memory. This article examines lay beliefs relating to memory and ways in which they diverge from expert consensus. It identifies ways in which current directions provided to jurors in this area are likely to be deficient in influencing juror knowledge and in helping them apply that knowledge in a case context, and develops criteria that can be used to assess the likely effectiveness of directions. A new evidence-based training direction is designed based on these criteria, and tested in a mock jury study (N = 411). Results suggest that the proposed direction is more effective than a basic direction in influencing juror knowledge and facilitating the application of that knowledge to case facts.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估证人证词:陪审员知识、错误记忆和循证指导的效用。
目击证人的证据在刑事案件中往往很重要,但众所周知,虚假或误导性目击证人的证据是错误定罪的主要原因。对于陪审员在评估目击者证据时所犯的错误,一个解释是他们缺乏与错误记忆有关的准确知识。这篇文章探讨了与记忆有关的世俗信仰,以及他们与专家共识分歧的方式。它确定了在影响陪审员的知识和帮助他们在案件背景下应用这些知识方面,目前向陪审员提供的指示在哪些方面可能存在不足,并制定了可用于评估指示可能有效性的标准。基于这些标准设计了一个新的循证培训方向,并在模拟陪审团研究中进行了测试(N = 411)。结果表明,在影响陪审员知识和促进陪审员知识对案件事实的应用方面,拟议方向比基本方向更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信