UC Riverside

Eyewitness testimony is a compelling form of evidence, and mistaken identification is a factor in most wrongful convictions (Gross & Schafer, 2012). It is crucial to understand whether jurors can judge the accuracy of the eyewitness identification from the facts of the testimony, and subsequently factor that information into their verdicts. Some research suggests that jurors are good at this task, while other research disagrees. The current dissertation includes a meta-analysis of this conflicting literature, followed by an experimental test of juror understanding using video, audio-only, written transcript, and written summary testimony. The meta-analysis data suggested that using written testimony resulted in greater juror sensitivity to factors relating to potential eyewitness accuracy and greater application of that knowledge to verdicts, than was seen using videotaped testimony. Based on these data, it was hypothesized that reading the testimony allows jurors greater opportunity to discern these factors, remember them better, and apply them more efficiently to their verdicts, compared to seeing or hearing the witness provide the actual testimony. This prediction was, in part, supported by the experimental data. Whether the juror saw, heard, or read the testimony, they noted the key information relating to eyewitness accuracy. They also retained that information, and understood its relationship to the probable accuracy of the identification. However, across stimulus formats, they did not equally apply that information to their verdicts. This dissertation examines those differences and suggests potential explanations for the discrepancies.