Issue-specific jury instructions in eyewitness cases: Are they more effective than traditional safeguards?

Cuny John Jay College Of Criminal Justice, New York NY

Investigators

Abstract

DNA exonerations demonstrate that eyewitness error is a primary source of erroneous convictions. The question naturally arises - can we find better ways to guide jurors in their assessments of eyewitness evidence? In 2012, the US Supreme Court, in Perry v. New Hampshire, decided (8-1) the first case involving eyewitness identification considered by the Court since 1977. The Court ruled that "it suffices to test [eyewitness] reliability through ... the presence of counsel at postindictment lineups, vigorous cross-examination, protective rules of evidence, and jury instructions on ... the fallibility of eyewitness identification." The decision is cited in state and federal courts that provide juries with instructions addressing specific aspects of eyewitness identifications. The largest step in this direction was taken by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2011 in a unanimous decision in State v. Henderson. The Henderson court: 1. embraced scientific findings concerning factors affecting eyewitness reliability; 2. made a series of explicit findings concerning those factors; 3. delegated the task of drafting explicit jury instructions concerning those factors; and 4. expressed a general preference for those instructions over the use of eyewitness expert testimony. The viability of issue-specific instructions such as those advanced in Henderson has not been tested - though limited research on broad-based eyewitness instructions to jurors has demonstrated that general instructions do not sensitize jurors to the factors embraced in Henderson. Because issue-specific instructions may alert jurors to eyewitness accuracy factors beyond lay knowledge, it is possible that enhanced research-based issue-specific instructions will more effectively improve jurors' evaluations of eyewitness evidence as compared to more general instructions. The PI will examine whether issue-specific eyewitness jury instructions can sensitize jurors to eyewitness evidence. In the planned mock-jury study the PI will compare eyewitness evidence and the type of eyewitness instruction jurors receive to test whether issue-specific eyewitness jury instructions sensitize jurors to variations in eyewitness evidence.