Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments.

Previous research shows that expert testimony on eyewitness memory influences mock-juror judgments. We examined the extent to which opposing expert testimony mitigates the impact of defense-only expert testimony. Participants (N = 497) viewed a video-taped trial involving an eyewitness identification and individually rendered verdicts and evaluated the evidence and the experts. We manipulated the Foils (unbiased vs. biased) and Instructions (unbiased vs. biased) of the lineup and Expert Testimony (no expert vs. defense-only expert vs. opposing experts). Expert testimony did not significantly influence juror judgments, but the opposing expert testimony diminished the credibility of the defense expert in the eyes of the jurors. Results point to the need for further research on conditions that qualify the impact of expert testimony.

Studying pretrial publicity effects: new methods for improving ecological validity and testing external validity.

Although research examining the effects of pretrial publicity (PTP) on individuals' appraisals of a defendant and verdict decision making generally has been found to be internally valid, the external validity has been questioned by some social scientists as well as lawyers and judges. It is often proposed that the verisimilitude (or ecological validity) ofthe research should be increased in the service of increasing external validity; however, increasing verisimilitude can be costly in terms of both time and money. It is proposed that the Internet is a viable means of conducting PTP research that allows high verisimilitude without high costs. This is demonstrated with a study in which we used the Internet to examine PTP effects in an actual trial as it was taking place. Successful use of the Internet to conduct experimental research in other areas of psychology and law is discussed, as well as the importance of future research examining whether independent variables interact with methods in ways that undermine the generalizability of research findings.

How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures.

Mock jurors (N = 800) viewed a videotaped trial that included information about a lineup identification procedure. Suggestiveness of the eyewitness identification procedure varied in terms of foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Expert testimony regarding the factors that influence lineup suggestiveness was also manipulated. Criteria included juror ratings of lineup suggestiveness and fairness, ratings of defendant culpability, and verdicts. Jurors were sensitive to foil bias but only minimally sensitive to instruction and presentation biases. Expert testimony enhanced juror sensitivity only to instruction bias. These results have implications for the effectiveness of cross-examination and expert testimony as safeguards against erroneous convictions resulting from mistaken identifications.