Judicial perceptions of eyewitness testimony

The impact of erroneous eyewitness identification on wrongful convictions of innocent individuals has been widely recognized by both the psychology and legal communities. Expert testimony regarding eyewitness memory research has been shown to be the one safeguard effective in diminishing the effects of mistaken identifications. However, judges have broad discretion in allowing psychological experts to testify at trial regarding eyewitness memory. The most common basis for exclusion by judges of such testimony has been that the testimony is not helpful because the proposed testimony is within the common knowledge of the average juror. Judicial perceptions of eyewitness memory and of juror knowledge are thus critical factors related to the admissibility of eyewitness expert testimony. This study investigated judicial knowledge of factors affecting eyewitness testimony, judicial perceptions of juror knowledge of such factors, and the relationship between judicial perception of juror knowledge and judicial exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness memory at trial.; The majority of judges in this study demonstrated limited knowledge of how most factors affect eyewitness memory. Inconsistent with prior research, judges who knew more about eyewitness testimony believed jurors were significantly more knowledgeable about factors that affect eyewitness identifications. Further, judges who were more knowledgeable were more likely to allow legal safeguards. This finding extended to expert testimony such that more knowledgeable judges were more likely to permit expert testimony as a legal safeguard. Finally, judges allowed significantly more legal safeguards when they believed jurors were more knowledgeable. This latter finding is inconsistent with both prior research and with court holdings excluding expert testimony on the basis that the subject matter of the testimony would be within the common knowledge of the jury.; This study also found a positive relationship between judicial exposure to educational materials and judicial knowledge about eyewitness testimony. More knowledgeable judges also acknowledged that judges should receive more training about eyewitness testimony. The overall findings of this study support further education of judges about eyewitness testimony as an ameliorative strategy in diminishing the effect of erroneous identifications on wrongful convictions.