Influence of eyewitness age and recall error on mock juror decision‐making

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine if child eyewitnesses are seen as more or less credible compared with older eyewitnesses and to determine whether the number of descriptive errors made while recalling the appearance of a perpetrator has an influence on perceived credibility of the witness. Mock jurors were given a mock trial that presented a positive identification by an eyewitness where age of the eyewitness (4-, 12-, 20-year-old) and the number of perpetrator descriptor errors (i.e., 0, 3, 6) made by the eyewitness were manipulated. Perceived levels of credibility, accuracy, and determinations of guilt were compared using a self-report questionnaire. Results support the hypothesis that mock jurors perceive eyewitnesses who make fewer errors in descriptions with more integrity (i.e., more credible, reliable, and accurate) and perceive the evidence presented by them (i.e., description of perpetrator and description of events) as more reliable. Overall, adult eyewitnesses are perceived with more integrity than child eyewitnesses.

Question Types, Responsiveness and Self‐contradictions when Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys Question Alleged Victims of Child Sexual Abuse

“…Because children and adults have different developmental capacities and limitations (Lamb et al, in press), and because judges and jurors often place a strong emphasis on consistency when assessing the veracity of oral testimony (e.g., Bruer & Pozzulo, in press; Home Office, ; Semmler & Brewer, ), it is vital to understand what questions can safely be posed to children by both the prosecution and the defense without obstructing the course of justice. This study systematically examined, in 120 court cases, the types of questions child witnesses were asked in court, how their responsiveness and consistency were affected by the types of questions asked, and whether this differed depending on their ages and the identity of the attorney (prosecutor or defense).…”

“…In adversarial jurisdictions, such as the United States, UK, and New Zealand, jurors often place a strong emphasis on report consistency when assessing the accuracy and veracity of oral testimony provided by witnesses (e.g., Bruer & Pozzulo, in press; Myers, Redlich, Goodman, Prizmich, & Imwinkelried, ; Semmler & Brewer, ). Although inconsistencies are reported by judges to have a small effect on trial outcomes (Connolly, Price, & Gordon, ), self‐contradictory or nonsensical responses may affect decisions by reducing children's testimonial credibility (Home Office, , section 2.214).…”

How do Lawyers Examine and Cross‐Examine Children in Scotland?

“…In adversarial jurisdictions, jurors often place a strong emphasis on report consistency when assessing testimony (e.g., Myers, Redlich, Goodman, Prizmich, & Imwinkelried, ; Semmler & Brewer, ; Bruer & Pozzulo, ). Although inconsistencies are reported by judges to have a small effect on trial outcomes (Connolly, Price, & Gordon, ), self‐contradictory responses may reduce children's testimonial credibility (Home Office, , section 2.214) and there is considerable interest in the extent to which testifying children might contradict themselves in court (e.g., Fisher, Brewer, & Mitchell, ).…”

The influence of eyewitness age, type of descriptor inconsistencies, and familiarity with defendant on mock jurors' perceptions of eyewitness testimony

“…For example, Bruer and Pozzulo (2012) measured eyewitness credibility, accuracy, and reliability. However, these variables were highly correlated and therefore combined into a composite measure called integrity.…”

“…Age-related differences in mock jurors' perceptions may be related to the mock jurors' inherent stereotypes (i.e. unfair beliefs attributed to all members of the same group, based on age, sex, race…) that children do not have as good of a memory as adults (Bruer & Pozzulo, 2012;Pozzulo et al 2006). Children also tend to display traits that are related to lower credibility, such as reduced confidence and a less forceful manner of speaking (Goodman et al, 1987).…”