NCJ Number
154290
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 19 Issue: 1 Dated: (February 1995) Pages: 79-88
Date Published
1995
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This study tested two hypotheses: that jurors exposed to inconsistent eyewitness testimony would perceive the eyewitness as less credible and the defendant as less culpable and that inconsistent statements concerning central details would have a greater influence on mock-jurors' reactions than would inconsistent statements about peripheral details.
Abstract
Participants were 100 college undergraduates from introductory psychology classes at a southeastern regional State university. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. They were informed that they were to view a videotaped direct and cross-examination of an eyewitness who was robbed while working in a bank, that the testimony given by the eyewitness assisted in the apprehension of the alleged perpetrator, and that the same eyewitness later identified the male suspect. The questionnaire included items that assessed verdict, probability that the defendant committed the crime, perception of defense and prosecution case strength, the importance of each side's evidence to the participants' determination of verdict, and eyewitness credibility. Participants exposed to inconsistent recall testimony about either central or peripheral details perceived the eyewitness as less credible and the defendant as less culpable. Inconsistency on central details led to fewer convictions. Results point to the effectiveness of a cross-examination strategy that highlights inconsistencies in the eyewitness's recall testimony. 1 table and 20 references