The trial as whodunit: The role of question types and degree of detail on perceptions of attorney -eyewitness interaction

Past research has shown that the degree of detail exhibited in eyewitness testimony can have a profound impact on juror perceptions. Research has also shown, however, that language effects, e.g. questions asked of witnesses, can change an eyewitness' testimony and even alter his or her memory of the events to which he or she is testifying. The story model, systematic and heuristic processing, and attribution theory are invoked here to show that a trial is a whodunit in which prosecution and defense attorneys compete with one another to convince the jury of the veracity of their version of events. It's the jury's job to unravel the mystery and judge which of the two stories best accounts for the facts. Since a case can hinge on the credibility of the eyewitness, attorneys must portray their witnesses in the best light possible and seek to discredit those of the opposing counsel. The degree of detail in eyewitness testimony was varied as was the question type that elicited the testimony and whether or not the eyewitness was discredited. Findings indicate that perceptions of the eyewitness' memory are important with regards to the formation of other perceptions by jurors of eyewitnesses. Further, the mode of questioning seems to be more important than the degree of detail provided in testimony in shaping perceptions of the eyewitness by jurors. It also seems to act as a filter through which jurors judge whether or not information should be included in the story they create or adopt to account for the facts of the case, especially if the eyewitness is discredited. Implications are discussed.