Lecture 6

Police Line-Ups

• In a 2008 analysis of 200 convictions overturned by DNA evidence, around 80% involved one or more mistaken eyewitnesses.
• Researchers are exploring applied questions to improve eyewitness testimony and studying its impact on psychological understanding and the legal system.
• Eyewitness recall and memory follow temporal patterns, including acquisition, storage, and retrieval, with accuracy degrading quickly.
• A person's viewing opportunity, such as longer exposure and more attention, can improve recall, but poor viewing opportunities do not always significantly impact eyewitness confidence.
• Stress and arousal can increase memory for the event itself but decrease memory for what preceded and followed, known as the weapon focus effect.
• There is a high failure rate in identifications, with 35.5% failing to identify anyone, and over one-third identifying a known-innocent person.
• Research is being conducted on how suspects are presented to witnesses:
  • Show-ups involve presenting a single witness to determine if they can identify the perpetrator.
  • Simultaneous lineups present several potential suspects to the witness at once.
  • Sequential lineups present potential suspects one at a time.
• Exploring ways to prevent feedback after a lineup can distort the witness's memory
• Steps to take:
  • Conduct a prelineup interview.
  • Establish evidence-based suspicion.
  • Use a double-blind procedure or equivalent.
  • Ensure lineup fillers, with only one suspect and at least five appropriate fillers.
  • Provide prelineup instructions, police should not inform the eyewitness of any new information, and witnesses should know the suspect may not be in the lineup, and "I don't know" is an acceptable response.
  • Obtain an immediate confidence statement.
  • Make a video recording.
  • Avoid repeated identifications.
  • Avoid show-ups.

Group Dynamics

• For centuries, groups have determined guilt and innocence.
• Juries weigh testimony to render verdicts, with over 300,000 juries convening annually in American courtrooms.
• Pro-Jury factors:
  • Deliberation
  • 80% agreement between judges and juries
  • Jury design minimizes bias
  • Studies suggest biases have minimal impact on judgments
• Anti-Jury Factors:
  • High profile juries raise questions
  • Gross misunderstanding of evidence and law
  • Lack of representativeness
  • Weaknesses in groups' capacity to process information

Voir Dire Questioning

• Psychologists are hired as jury selection consultants to use empirically based procedures to select jurors, conducting focus groups, shadow juries, and community surveys.
• Voir dire is the research focus
• This is the stage of evaluating potential jurors, where a sample is reviewed, and 12 are selected.
• Peremptory challenge allows lawyers to 'strike' jurors within a trial without explanation unless requested.

Explicit & Implicit Biases

• Explicit biases are those we have access to, and people should communicate their true beliefs about their ability to serve, though they often do not readily self-disclose.
• Judges' vague questions and status differences are addressed in private settings with clear questions.
• Implicit biases are those we don't 'access' and can cause people to truthfully claim no biases while maintaining prejudices.
• Implicit biases relate to juror attitudes, heuristics used by judges, and lawyer reasons for removing jurors.
• Pretrial publicity can activate biases.
• A study showed pretrial publicity doubled the odds of a jury going against the defendant but didn't change bias perceptions.
• A survey reported that over 70% of judges don't address implicit bias with juries.

Improving Jury Selection

• Small and large juries' verdicts do not differ significantly; diverse juries are more likely to have a person expressing a minority view.
• Juries needing unanimous decisions render judgments slowly and are more likely to be hung; though evidence-driven.
• Training jurors together to build cohesion and in teamwork to improve coordination is an opportunity.
• Increase awareness of biases
• Increasing the use of juror questionnaires can mitigate biases.
• Mini opening statements (5-7 minutes) help jurors ‘self-diagnose'.
• Broaden voir dire by increasing the scope of possible questions.
• Ask complex questions to induce deeper participant responses
  • Rather than asking whether someone would be influenced, better to ask how their judgment would be influenced.

Batson Framework

• In 1986; United States Supreme Court - The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause forbids prosecutors from striking "black veniremen on the assumption that they will be biased... simply because the defendant is black"
• The 3-step process:
  • Defendant shows inference of challenge based on race
  • Prosecutor explains the decision
  • Judge decides whether this was discriminatory

Important Questions

• List and briefly describe each of the solutions proposed by Bornstein and Greene (2017), to improve jury selection using psychology.
  • Jury Pool Diversification: Expansion to have more diverse demographics, which results in representative juries
  • Voir Dire Optimization: Utilizing psychological techniques to optimize the questioning process during jury selection process to ensure biases are identified.
  • Juror Compatibility: Select jurors based on their psychological compatibility with a case
  • Use of Mock Trials: Use during mock trials to understand how jurors react to evidence and arguments
  • Bias Awareness Training: Providing jurors with bias training to minimize biases in decision-making.
• List and briefly describe the three steps underpinning the Batson Framework. Describe how we know (based on psychology) that it does not effectively achieve its main purpose: reducing discrimination.
  • Determining a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination: Defendant must show discriminatory practices based on race
  • Providing a Legitimate, Race-Neutral Reason: Prosecutor has to give a nondiscriminatory reason for excluding a juror.
  • Evaluating the Prosecution's Reasoning: Judge assesses whether the provided reason is genuine or a pretext for discrimination.
• Why it fails: Psychological research shows that race-neutral reasons often mask unconscious biases, and judges are reluctant to overturn jury decisions, which results in persistent racial disparities despite the intent.
• Describe what the Wells and colleagues' set of recommendations for eyewitness identification evidence pertain to, and how they generated the recommendations. Further, list and briefly describe at least four of the recommendations.
  • Focus: The recommendations address the reliability of eyewitness testimony, especially challenges associated with accuracy
  • Generation: Based on cognitive psychology and real-world studies on eyewitness errors
  • Four Key Recommendations:
    • Sequential Lineups: Eyewitnesses should view suspects in a lineup one at a time, rather than presenting all at once, to reduce comparison bias.
    • Double-Blind Administration: The person administering the lineup should not know which suspect is the target, preventing inadvertent cues.
    • Clear Instructions: Eyewitnesses should be informed that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup, reducing pressure.
    • Confidence Statements: Eyewitnesses should provide an immediate statement of confidence in their identification, helping to assess the accuracy of their recollection.
• Solutions proposed by Bornstein and Greene (2017), to improve jury selection using psychology:
  • Jury Pool Diversification: Expanding jury pools to encompass more diverse demographics which leads to more representative juries.
  • Voir Dire Optimization: Using psychological techniques to improve the questioning process during jury selection, ensuring that potential biases are identified early.
  • Juror Compatibility: Selecting jurors based on psychological compatibility with case specifics, including their views on the case type and defendant.
  • Use of Mock Trials: Using mock trials to understand how different types of jurors may react to evidence and arguments before actual jury selection.
  • Bias Awareness Training: Providing jurors with training on biases (e.g., implicit bias) to minimize the influence of unconscious prejudices in their decision-making.
• Three steps underpinning the Batson Framework:
  • Step 1: Determining a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination: The defendant must demonstrate that discriminatory practices occurred (e.g., biased peremptory challenges) based on race or other protected characteristics.
  • Step 2: Providing a Legitimate, Race-Neutral Reason: The prosecutor must give a non-discriminatory reason for excluding a juror (e.g., a past criminal record).
  • Step 3: Evaluating the Prosecution’s Reasoning: The judge assesses whether the provided reason is genuine or a pretext for discrimination.
• The Batson Framework fails because psychological research shows that race-neutral reasons often mask unconscious biases, and judges are reluctant to overturn jury decisions, which results in persistent racial disparities despite the framework’s intent.
• Wells and colleagues' set of recommendations for eyewitness identification evidence:
  • Focus: The recommendations address the reliability of eyewitness testimony, particularly the challenges associated with eyewitness identification accuracy.
  • Generation: The recommendations were based on extensive research into cognitive psychology and real-world studies on eyewitness errors, especially in cases of mistaken identity.
  • Key Recommendations:
    • Sequential Lineups: Eyewitnesses should view suspects in a lineup one at a time, rather than all at once, to reduce comparison bias.
    • Double-Blind Administration: The person administering the lineup should not know which suspect is the target, preventing inadvertent cues.
    • Clear Instructions: Eyewitnesses should be informed that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup, reducing pressure to select someone.
    • Confidence Statements: Eyewitnesses should provide an immediate statement of confidence in their identification, helping to assess the accuracy of their recollection.