Re‐assessing Trial by Jury in Early Modern Law and Literature

Dunne, Derek

doi:10.1111/lic3.12264

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…England and Wales adhere to a procedural tradition of adversarial fact-finding and narrative building in which the prosecution and defence are expected to collect evidence in the pre-trial phase to subsequently present these findings in court (Brants and Field, 2016). Within this framework of adversarial litigation jurors are considered impartial decision-makers who decide on innocence or guilt after an adequate evaluation and discussion of the evidence (Brants and Field, 2016; Dunne, 2015). Criminal case judgment in England and Wales is thus strongly wedded to the principle of lay fact-finding by jurors, who are expected to employ common-sense reasoning in their assessment of the facts of the case (Jackson et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidentiary instructions improve mock juror assessment of feature-comparison evidence

Ribbers

Henneberg

2018

The International Journal of Evidence & Proof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feature-comparison evidence has been introduced in court without sufficient scientific validation and has been at the heart of numerous miscarriages of justice. Juror assessment of such evidence and the efficacy of evidentiary instructions were examined through a mock jury experiment with case reports featuring either central or peripheral feature-comparison evidence. In a case-control design (N = 174), the test group was exposed to an evidentiary instruction about the ear print evidence presented in the first case report (adapted from R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903) whereas the control group did not receive such an instruction. The provision of this instruction resulted in a significant decrease in verdict severity with a large effect size. For the second case report (based on R v George (Barry) [2007] EWCA Crim 2722), all subjects were asked to return verdicts based on circumstantial evidence, gunpowder residue evidence, and an evidentiary instruction about that gunpowder residue evidence. Verdict severity increased significantly after the provision of gunpowder residue evidence, followed by a subsequent reduction in verdict severity after the introduction of an evidentiary instruction. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in verdict severity between the test and control group, suggesting that the test group exhibited a scepticism effect brought about by the initial evidentiary instruction about ear print evidence. This study demonstrates that although mock jurors consider feature-comparison evidence a convincing indicator of guilt, the provision of an evidentiary instruction has the potential to educate jurors about the limitations of such evidence.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%