Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses

In response to lawyers' critiques of earlier staged-crime, mock-jury studies, 16 eyewitnesses to a staged crime were videotaped while being questioned by lawyers in a real courthouse. Accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses were questioned by experienced or inexperienced lawyers for the prosecution and defense. Subsequently, 178 University of Alberta undergraduates served as mock-jurors and attempted to detect the accuracy of the witnesses based on their taped testimony. As in the previous research, the overall rate of belief was quite high (69%), and the subjects believed the testimony of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses at about the same rate (68% vs. 70%, respectively). Lawyers' experience failed to influence verdict. Confidence of the eyewitness was significantly related to belief of their testimony. The data replicate the previous findings and demonstrate that lack of expertise of the questioners does not account for the failure to detect eyewitness accuracy in this paradigm.The authors wish to thank 36 lawyers and senior law students from the Kingston area who donated their time. The research was supported by a grant to the first author from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.     

Adults’ Judgments of Children's Coached Reports

This study investigated adults’ judgments of the honesty of children's coached true and fabricated mock testimony. Adults saw video clips of children testifying in a mock court about a true or fabricated event in their lives. They were asked to make an assessment of the truthfulness of the testimony, and respond to questions about their perception of children's credibility. Half of the adults saw children testifying after a competence examination, and the other half saw children testifying without a competence examination. Overall, girls were rated as more competent than boys, and their testimony was more likely to be believed. Younger children were more likely to be rated as incompetent than older children. A factor analysis of adults’ responses revealed six factors which significantly predicted adults’ overall assessment of children's credibility, and their evaluations of children's competence to testify. Adults’ detection accuracy was at chance, with the majority of children rated as truthful. Viewing the competency examination and cross-examination did not improve the adults’ detection accuracy. However, seeing the cross-examination made adults’ less likely to believe children's testimony. The implications of these results for the judicial system are discussed.     

MALTREATED CHILDREN'S ABILITY TO ESTIMATE TEMPORAL LOCATION AND NUMEROSITY OF PLACEMENT CHANGES AND COURT VISITS

Research examining children's temporal knowledge has tended to utilize brief temporal intervals and singular, neutral events, and is not readily generalizable to legal settings in which maltreated children are asked temporal questions about salient, repeated abuse that often occurred in the distant past. To understand how well maltreated children can describe temporal location and numerosity of documented, personal experiences, we assessed 167 6- to 10-year-old maltreated children's temporal memory for changes in their living arrangements and prior visits to court. Small percentages of children were capable of providing exact temporal location information (age, month, or season) regarding their first or last placement or court experience, or numerosities for placements or court visits. Greater knowledge of current temporal locations did not predict better performance. However, older children's performance for several temporal judgments was better than chance, and their reports were not largely discrepant from the truth. Findings suggest caution when questioning maltreated children about when and how many times prior events occurred.     

Intoxicated eyewitnesses: Better than their reputation?

According to law enforcement, many witnesses are intoxicated either at the time of the crime, the interview, or both (Evans et al., Public Policy Law 15(3):194-221, 2009). However, no study to date has examined whether intoxicated witnesses' recall is different from sober witnesses' and whether they are more vulnerable to misinformation using an ecologically valid experimental design. Intoxicated, placebo, and sober witnesses observed a live, staged theft, overheard subsequent misinformation about the theft, and took part in an investigative interview. Participants generally believed they witnessed a real crime and experienced a real interview. Intoxicated witnesses were not different from placebo or sober witnesses in the number of accurate details, inaccurate details, or "don't know" answers reported. All the participants demonstrated a misinformation effect, but there were no differences between intoxication levels: Intoxicated participants were not more susceptible to misinformation than sober or placebo participants. Results are discussed in the light of their theoretical and applied relevance.