Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts

TLDR

The study examined how jurors, judges, and law enforcement professionals understand factors that affect eyewitness accuracy. Participants completed a survey of 30 statements about eyewitness issues, and their responses were compared to those of eyewitness experts. Jurors disagreed with experts on 87% of issues, judges and law enforcement on 60%, revealing a substantial knowledge gap that suggests the legal system could benefit from expert assistance. © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract

Knowledge of factors affecting eyewitness accuracy was examined in a sample of jurors, judges and law enforcement professionals. Participants completed a survey in which they were asked to agree or disagree with 30 statements about eyewitness issues, and their responses were compared to a sample of eyewitness experts who completed the same survey. Participant responses differed significantly from responses of eyewitness experts. Jurors disagreed with the experts on 87% of the issues, while judges and law enforcement disagreed with the experts on 60% of the issues. The findings show a large deficiency in knowledge of eyewitness memory amongst jurors, judges and law enforcement personnel, indicating that the legal system may benefit from expert assistance in the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.