Judicial discussion of eyewitness identification evidence.

Bruer, Kaila C.; Price, Heather L.; Harvey, Madison B.; Adams, Alyssa

doi:10.1037/cbs0000084

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our primary goal was to advance the psychological science in this area by examining judicial rulings to understand the relationship between VISs and sentencing outcomes in a real-world context. Applying a methodology similar to that used by other scholars (e.g., Bruer et al, 2017; Erez & Tontodonato, 1990; Welsh & Ogloff, 2008), we examined a repository of sentencing rulings to generate a database. Rather than specific hypotheses, we tested five exploratory research questions.…”

Section: Judicial Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(p. 396) Legal systems rely on the fundamental assumption that impartial judges make sound decisions devoid of intrusion by extralegal factors. Researchers have explored judicial decision making for some time using a variety of research methodologies and data analytic techniques, including surveys of judges regarding their views on different types of evidence (e.g., Freiburger, 2010;Magnussen et al, 2010;Monahan et al, 2018), experimental designs with judges deciding on case summaries (e.g., Miller, 2019;Stinson et al, 1997), observations of court hearings (e.g., Dhami, 2003Dhami, , 2005Person et al, 2018), and document analysis of rulings or court records (e.g., Bruer et al, 2017;Welsh & Ogloff, 2008; for a review, see Dhami & Belton, 2017). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

Section: Judicial Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The relationship between victim impact statements and judicial decision making: An archival analysis of sentencing outcomes.

Dufour,

Ternes,

Stinson

2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Victim impact statements (VISs) are testimonies that convey the emotional, physical, and financial harm that victims have suffered as the result of a crime. Although VISs are often presented to the court at sentencing, it is unclear whether they impact judicial decisions regarding sentencing. Hypotheses: We did not have any formal a priori hypothesis but instead examined five research questions. The first two explored whether the relationship between the victim and the offender, as well as the type of crime, was associated with differences in the likelihood of VIS submission. The following two explored whether the presence of a VIS was associated with differences in sentencing outcomes (incarceration, probation, ancillary orders, parole eligibility). The final research question explored whether the number of VISs and the delivery format (oral vs. written) was associated with differences in sentencing outcomes. Method: We coded and analyzed 1,332 sentencing rulings across Canada from 2016 to 2018 that included the phrase “impact statement.” We coded for 87 variables, including information about the VIS, the victims and offenders, crime type, and sentencing outcomes. Results: Overall, VISs are more likely to be delivered in cases in which the crime is more severe. Once we controlled for the type of crime, sentencing outcomes were unrelated to the presence of VISs. Sentences were longer when VISs were delivered orally than in written format and when more than one statement was submitted. Conclusions: The relationship between VISs and sentencing outcomes is closely tied to several extralegal factors and should be investigated further. This research offers insight into the mechanics of victim evidence at sentencing. The findings of this study have implications for lawyers, researchers, judges, victims, offenders, and other stakeholders in our legal systems.

show abstract

Section: Judicial Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Judicial Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between victim impact statements and judicial decision making: An archival analysis of sentencing outcomes.

Dufour,

Ternes,

Stinson

2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Judges' ability to discriminate between reliable and unreliable witness evidence is, however, limited (Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006). Archival data from cases between 1980 -2016 in Canada also show judges rarely discuss factors that influence eyewitness reliability in court (Bruer, Harvey, Adams, Price, 2017). Despite this research, it is at least possible that if biased lineup evidence is, for one reason or another, ruled as admissible evidence, and the judge is able to recognise the unreliability of the evidence, a judicial warning could be an option to reduce jurors' reliance on that evidence.…”

Section: Warningsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Number of Unanimous Witnesses who Identify a Suspect from a Lineup Influences Mock Jurors

Taylor¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>During a criminal proceeding, jurors need to weigh up the presented evidence and determine a verdict. Research has shown that witness identification evidence is compelling to jurors, despite the fact that it can be unreliable. How reliable are the combined lineup decisions gathered from multiple witnesses? Generally, the more witnesses who identify the same person from a lineup, the more likely that person is guilty. But recent theoretical evidence suggests that a greater number of witnesses identifying the same person from a biased lineup can indicate that person is actually less likely to be guilty than if there were a smaller number of witnesses identifying that person (Gunn et al., 2016). As the number of agreeing witnesses increases, the more likely that agreement is caused by the lineup bias, rather than consistent witness memories of the crime. In this thesis, I examined how unanimity and lineup bias influenced jurors’ perceptions of guilt. Subjects who saw a biased lineup gave lower ratings of guilt compared to subjects that were shown a lineup that had no obvious bias. In addition, warning subjects that a lineup was biased led them to give lower guilt ratings than subjects who did not receive a warning. Subjects who were told there were two witnesses who identified the police suspect gave higher guilt ratings than subjects who were told there was one witness who identified the police suspect, but only when the lineup was clearly not biased. Subjects’ guilt ratings were not significantly greater in conditions with more than two unanimous witnesses identifying the police suspect. It seems subjects had a limit of certainty based on changes in witness numbers alone. We also found that the way in which witness numbers were presented to subjects influenced guilt ratings. When we presented witnesses coming forward in different groups and on different days, subjects shifted their guilt ratings upwards. When the number of witnesses decreased during the experiment, subjects did not decrease their guilt ratings to the same extent as those subjects in conditions in which the number of witnesses increased by the same magnitude. This finding is consistent with the literature on confirmation bias and the story model of juror decision-making—subjects likely formed an initial belief that the identified suspect was guilty and subsequent evidence was evaluated against that belief (Nickerson, 1988; Pennington & Hastie, 1993). The finding that presenting witnesses coming forward in separate groups increased subjects’ guilt ratings adds to the literature showing that jurors are influenced by irrelevant information presented to them during a proceeding. This research also demonstrates that future research should examine strength of evidence manipulations over multiple levels—rather than as dichotomous “strong” and “weak” extremes.</p>

show abstract