Using the model statement to elicit information and cues to deceit in interpreter-based interviews.

We examined how the presence of an interpreter during an interview affects eliciting information and cues to deceit, while using a method that encourages interviewees to provide more detail (model statement, MS). A total of 199 Hispanic, Korean and Russian participants were interviewed either in their own native language without an interpreter, or through an interpreter. Interviewees either lied or told the truth about a trip they made during the last twelve months. Half of the participants listened to a MS at the beginning of the interview. The dependent variables were 'detail', 'complications', 'common knowledge details', 'self-handicapping strategies' and 'ratio of complications'. In the MS-absent condition, the interviews resulted in less detail when an interpreter was present than when an interpreter was absent. In the MS-present condition, the interviews resulted in a similar amount of detail in the interpreter present and absent conditions. Truthful statements included more complications and fewer common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies than deceptive statements, and the ratio of complications was higher for truth tellers than liars. The MS strengthened these results, whereas an interpreter had no effect on these results.

Expert testimony on eyewitness evidence: in search of common sense.

Surveys on knowledge of eyewitness issues typically indicate that legal professionals and jurors alike can be insensitive to factors that are detrimental to eyewitness accuracy. One aim of the current research was to assess the extent to which judges, an under-represented sample in the extant literature, are aware of factors that may undermine the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness evidence (Study 1). We also sought to assess the knowledge of a jury-eligible sample of the general public (drawn from the same population as the judges) and compared responses from a multiple choice survey with a scenario-based, response-generation survey in order to investigate whether questionnaire format alters the accuracy of responses provided (Study 2). Overall, judges demonstrated a reasonable level of knowledge regarding general eyewitness memory issues. Further, the jury-eligible general public respondents completing a multiple choice format survey produced more responses consistent with experts than did participants who were required to generate their own responses. The results are discussed in terms of the future training requirements for legal professionals and the ability of jurors to apply the knowledge they have to the legal context.

The emotional eyewitness: the effects of emotion on specific aspects of eyewitness recall and recognition performance.

The present set of experiments aimed to investigate the effects of negative emotion on specific aspects of eyewitness recall and recognition performance. The experience of emotion was manipulated between subjects, with participants either viewing a crime scenario (a mugging) or a neutral scenario (a conversation). Eyewitness recall was categorized into descriptions of the perpetrator, critical incident, victim, and environmental details. The completeness and accuracy of eyewitness recall across categories of detail were measured in Experiment 1. A significant main effect of negative emotion was found for the completeness of recall. Furthermore, a significant main effect of the completeness of eyewitness statements was found, but not for their accuracy. However, these main effects were qualified by a significant interaction between emotion and category of detail recalled. Specifically, emotional participants provided a more complete description of the perpetrator than neutral participants; however, they were less able than their neutral counterparts to describe what the perpetrator did to the victim. In light of these findings, Experiment 2 investigated whether enhanced completeness of perpetrator descriptions during recall translated into an enhanced ability to recognize the perpetrator from a photographic lineup by emotional compared with neutral participants. Results from Experiment 2 suggest that while emotional participants again provide a more complete description of the perpetrator, they are less able than their neutral counterparts to recognize the perpetrator from a photographic lineup. Results are discussed in terms of a retrieval motivation hypothesis of negative emotional experience and the possible consequences for eyewitness testimony.

A third verdict option: exploring the impact of the not proven verdict on mock juror decision making.

In most adversarial systems, jurors in criminal cases consider the binary verdict alternatives of "Guilty" and "Not guilty." However, in some circumstances and jurisdictions, a third verdict option is available: Not Proven. The Not Proven verdict essentially reflects the view that the defendant is indeed culpable, but that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Like a Not Guilty verdict, the Not Proven verdict results in an acquittal. The main aim of the two studies reported here was to determine how, and under what circumstances, jurors opt to use the Not Proven verdict across different case types and when the strength of the evidence varies. In both studies, jurors were more likely to choose a Not Proven verdict over a Not Guilty verdict when the alternative was available. When evidence against the defendant was only moderately strong and a Not Proven verdict option was available (Study 2), there was also a significant reduction in the conviction rate. Results also showed that understanding of the Not Proven verdict was poor, highlighting inadequacies in the nature of judicial instructions relating to this verdict.