EFFECTS OF DISCREDITED EYEWITNESSES

ON JURY VERDICTS
Fort Lewis College
Natalia DiIacovo

RESEARCH QUESTION
What is the Effect of Discredited Eyewitnesses
on Jurors Verdicts?
In a study examining the effect contradictory eyewitness statements
have on jurors perception of eyewitness credibility and how this
relates to their chosen verdict (Berman, Narby, and Cutler, 1995),
results showed that when eyewitnesses showed inconsistencies,
jurors were more likely to view them as less credible, believe the
defendant to be less culpable, and were less likely to vote guilty.
According to a study by Dahl, Drevland, Eilertsen, and Magnussen
(2007), displayed emotion of eyewitnesses during their testimony
has no effect on verdict in juries, but does affect individually reported
ratings of guilt. This shows that jury deliberation (deliberation within a
group) does not always take into account the same variables that the
jurors would individually.

DISCUSSION

RESULTS
A one way analysis of variance revealed there was a
significant effect of type of evidence on guilt ratings,
F(2,94)=8.676, p<.05, 2 =.16. The Tukey post hoc test
revealed that guilt ratings were lower in the group that heard
circumstantial evidence (M=5.06, SD=1.083) than in valid
eyewitness group (M=5.83, SD=1.289), p=.04. Also, the
valid eyewitness (M=5.83, SD=1.289) group had a
significantly higher rating of guilt than the discredited eye
witness group (M=4.5, SD=1.414), p=.00. However, there
was no significant difference between the guilt ratings in the
group that heard circumstantial evidence and the discredited
eyewitness group (M=4.5, SD=1.414), p=.174.

Kassin and Neumanns (1997) study on which types of evidence are

most powerful and potent in determining a guilty verdict showed that
among confessions, eyewitness, and character testimony,
confessions were the most powerful form of evidence.
An extensive study by Martire and Kemp (2009) showed that
exposing jurors to expert advice on how to accurately evaluate
eyewitness testimony (mainly informing jurors that confident
eyewitnesses are more likely to be correct) does not actually
improve jurors accuracy in verdict.

The results show that discredited eyewitnesses tend to have lower

guilt ratings than do non-discredited eyewitnesses. However, since
there is no significant difference in the guilt ratings of the control
group and the discredited eyewitness group, we can not assume
that discredited eyewitnesses cause the verdict to be swayed further
to the innocent side than circumstantial evidence alone. It seems
that eyewitness testimony, when credible, has the most influence on
guilt ratings under the circumstances given in this study.
It is possible that when jurors are presented with an eyewitness that
ends up being discredited, they reject the eyewitness testimony and
look only at the circumstantial evidence, thus leading their verdicts
to be the same as those who only were presented with
circumstantial evidence.
A possible next step to further this research could be to conduct a
similar study, but have participants deliberate on their verdicts in
mock juries rather than individually. This would allow for a more
realistic scenario that could be more generalizable to real life trials.
Our findings can be used by lawyers, who might see less reason to
be weary of calling forth an eyewitness that might get discredited.
From our findings, it doesnt seem to have a negative effect on guilt
ratings.

In a study by Sigler and Couch (2002), discredited eyewitnesses

were found to increase jurors likelihood of voting not guilty.

METHOD
Participants
N = 97 undergraduate students (48 male, 49 female)

Procedure
1. Informed Consent
Participants were first asked to fill out an informed consent sheet, where they were asked to indicate
they were willing participants of the study and told what it entailed.
2. Trial Scenario
Each participant was given one of three different trial scenarios. The first scenario included only
circumstantial evidence and was used as the control group. The second scenario had circumstantial
evidence and eyewitness testimony. The third scenario had circumstantial evidence and discredited
eyewitness testimony.
3. Questionnaire
After reading the trial scenario, participants were asked to rate the guilt of the defendant on an eight
point scale. Ratings were: definitely innocent, very probably innocent, probably innocent, possibly
innocent, possibly guilty, probably guilty, very probably guilty, and definitely guilty.
4. Debriefing
Following their participation in the study, participants were debriefed on what the research intended
to investigate and what implications it might have.

Thursday, October 3, 13

REFERENCES
Berman, G. L., Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Effects of inconsistent eyewitness
statements on mock-jurors' evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant
culpability and verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 19(1), 79-88. doi:10.1007/
BF01499074
Dahl, J., Enemo, I., Drevland, G. C. B., Wessel, E., Eilertsen, D. E., & Magnussen, S. (2007).
Displayed emotions and witness credibility: A comparison of judgements by individuals
and mock juries. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(9), 1145-1155. doi:10.1002/acp.1320
Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental
test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law And Human Behavior, 21(5),
469-484. doi:10.1023/A:1024871622490
Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2009). The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial
instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior,
33(3), 225-236. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9134-z
Sigler, J. N., & Couch, J. V. (2002). Eyewitness testimony and the jury verdict. North American
Journal of Psychology, 4(1), 143-148.