Expert Testimony is More Effective than Jury Instructions in Increasing Sensitivity to Disputed Confession Evidence

In recognition of the role that false confessions play in wrongful convictions, it is recommended that criminal interrogations be video recorded from beginning to end to document the process by which suspects decide to confess. With a full video recording, it is assumed that jurors can see for themselves whether the defendant was coerced to confess to a crime he or she did not commit. Yet research suggests that video recording may in fact induce bias in interpretations of coercion and confession reliability, as factors like camera angles and close-ups can make confession evidence too vivid and persuasive. Without proper interpretation, even seemingly neutral recordings may unduly influence jurors’ decisions about confessions. This chapter reviews the literature on the usefulness of video-recorded interrogations in assisting jury decision-making, as well as the potential for procedural safeguards (e.g., expert testimony) to improve jurors’ understanding of the issues at hand.

Download Full-text

Implicit Jury Bias

10.1093/oso/9780190658113.003.0005 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Anna Roberts

Keyword(s):

Expert Testimony ◽

Implicit Bias ◽

Educational Interventions ◽

Educational Methods ◽

Jury Instructions ◽

Jury Bias

The purpose of this chapter is to consider whether educational methods are—or could be—an effective way of tackling the implicit jury biases that threaten the fairness of trials. First, the chapter introduces the key ingredients of implicit bias, focusing particularly on their consequences for juries. It then reviews the efforts that have been made to use educational interventions to address implicit jury bias, as well as others that have been proposed. These existing and proposed interventions include jury orientation, jury instructions, expert testimony, individuation, and race salience. The chapter concludes by reviewing some of the primary obstacles to these kinds of efforts.

Download Full-text

The Intractability of Inaccurate Eyewitness Identification

Daedalus ◽

10.1162/daed_a_00522 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 147 (4) ◽

pp. 90-98 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jed S. Rakoff ◽

Elizabeth F. Loftus

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Expert Testimony ◽

Eyewitness Identification ◽

Human Perception ◽

Eyewitness Testimony ◽

Wrongful Convictions ◽

Jury Instructions ◽

Eyewitness Identifications ◽

The U.S ◽

Made In

Inaccurate eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. As early as 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized this danger, but the tests it promulgated to distinguish reliable from unreliable eyewitness testimony were based largely on surmise. More recently, substantial research has demonstrated that, while significant improvements can be made in the manner in which lineups, photo arrays, and other identification procedures are conducted, inherent limitations of human perception, memory, and psychology raise, in many cases, intractable barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony. Where barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony exist, one response is to sensitize jurors to the limitations of eyewitness identifications, but studies to date have not shown that special jury instructions can accomplish that purpose. Moreover, research on expert testimony has produced mixed results, with some studies showing that it helps jurors discriminate between good and bad eyewitness evidence, and other studies showing that it merely creates overall skepticism.

Download Full-text