바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.22 No.3
Citation Share

The Effects of Expert Testimony about Eyewitness Memory on Jury Decision Making

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2008, v.22 no.3, pp.33-47
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2008.22.3.003


& (2008). The Effects of Expert Testimony about Eyewitness Memory on Jury Decision Making. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 22(3), 33-47, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2008.22.3.003
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

This study attempted to test the effects of expert testimony about eyewitness memory on juror decision making. Three experiments were carried out. In all studies participants were shown a part of mock jury trial video which was recorded on August 26, 2004 and run by the Presidential Commission on Judicial Reform. The purpose of study 1 was to study the effect of expert testimony about eyewitness memory on juror decision making. In the study 1, 45 students were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions (no expert, defence-only expert, prosecuting attorney-only expert). Results of study 1 showed that participants in the prosecuting attorney-only expert condition were more likely to believe the eyewitness and gave the defendant higher guilty ratings than those in no expert condition.. Participants in the defense-only expert condition were less likely to gave the defendant higher innocence ratings than those in the no expert condition. But there was no significant difference in eyewitness credibility ratings. Study 2 was designed to examine the effect of cross-examination about expert testimony on juror decision making. 60 students were randomly assigned to one of 2 (strength of cross-examination：weak vs. strong) ×2 (expert testimony：defense-only expert vs. prosecuting attorney-only expert) experimental conditions. As a result, Jurors in the strong cross-examination condition about defense-only expert were more likely to believe eyewitness and gave the defendant higher guilty ratings than the weak cross-examination condition. Study 3 was to examine the effects of cross-examination when prosecution and defense both call for expert witnesses on jury decision making. 60 students participated in study 3. There was no significant difference among experimental conditions in guilty or innocent ratings about the defendant and in eyewitness credibility ratings.

keywords
전문가 증인, 반대신문, 피고인에 대한 배심원의 유, 무죄 판단, 목격자 신뢰도, 전문가 증인 신뢰도, Expert testimony, cross-examination, juror decision making, eyewitness credibility, expert witness credibility

Reference

1.

박광배, (2004) 목격자와 증인 진술의 정확성, 한림응용심리연구소 워크샵

2.

Connors, E., (1996) Convicted by juries, exonerated by science：case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial., VA：National Institute of Justice.

3.

Cutler, B. L., (1989) The eyewitness, The expert psychologist, and The jury., Law and Human Behavior

4.

Cutler, B. L., (2004) Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgements., Law and Human Behavior

5.

Eyewitness Misidentification.,

6.

Fox, S. G., (1986) The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment., Law and Human Behavior

7.

Hosch, H. M., (1980) Influ- ence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on juror decisions., Law and Human Behavior

8.

Katzev, R. D., (1985) The impact of judicial commentary concerning eyewitness identifications on jury decision making., The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

9.

Kassin, S. M., (2001) On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research：A new survey of the experts., American Psychologist

10.

Loftus, E. F. , (1980) Impact of expert psychological tes- timony on the unreliability of eyewitness identifi- cation., Journal of Applied Psychology

11.

Maass, A., (1985) Tes- tifying on eyewitness reliability. Expert advice is not always persuasive., Journal of Applied Social Psychology

12.

Petty, R. E., (1981) Attitudes and persuasion：classic and contemporary approaches., Wm. C. Brown

13.

Petty,R.E., (1995) Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength：Creating attitudes that are persistent,resistant,and predictive of behavior.In R.E.Petty &J.A.Krosnick(Eds.),Attitude strength：Antecedents and consequences, Erlbaum.

14.

Wells, G. L., (1979) Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eye- witness testimony., Journal of Applied Psychology

15.

Wells, G. L., (1980) Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony. This issue, Law and Human Behavior

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy